Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Loan Charge: Bankruptcy

Ruth Cadbury: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people subject to the loan charge who have been declared bankrupt.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Minister.

Jesse Norman: Good morning to you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be in a Chamber that is 100% full strength after so many months. If I may make a personal note without undue deference, Mr Speaker, I will say that I thoroughly appreciated your remarks about standards within the Chamber.
To date, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has not initiated insolvency proceedings against any taxpayer for a loan charge debt. No estimate can be provided for the number of people who have fallen into debt or who have been declared bankrupt and are subject to the loan charge because, where debts arise, HMRC is not always the only creditor. Some individuals are declared bankrupt as a result of a non-HMRC debt and some may choose to enter insolvency themselves based on their overall financial position.

Ruth Cadbury: We know that there are many, many thousands of nurses, social workers and other public sector workers who have been caught up in the loan charge. They took work via agencies that basically told them, “Sign here or you don’t get the work.” Checking to see whether they would be liable for the loan charge was not an option. Last week, the Yorkshire Post reported that a number of former services personnel had been affected and that one is feeling suicidal as a direct result. What does the Minister say to this veteran and the thousands of other public servants whose lives have been turned upside down by this retrospective taxation?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Taxation is often a difficult matter for the relatively small number of individuals who may be affected by particular pressures. Of course the Government recognise and understand that, but it is nevertheless the case—it is indeed a foundational principle of the tax system—that people should be responsible for their own tax returns. If I may, I would like to refer the hon. Lady to the very  wise words of the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who said in 2018 that
“we would obviously welcome tightening in the area of disguised remuneration schemes…We are concerned that the measures in the Bill do not go far enough…There should be no excuse”—
these are her words—
“for people not to be aware of the situation”.––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 9 January 2018; c. 30.]
I am afraid that she was right about that.

James Murray: The Conservative Government’s approach to the loan charge means that ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are suffering financial ruin and personal harm. Ministers will have heard some harrowing accounts of people pushed to the very brink and worse, some even tragically taking their own lives. This cannot be what the Government envisaged and a new approach is urgently needed. Will the Treasury now review the loan charge scheme and the approach of HMRC to prevent further devastating consequences?

Jesse Norman: As I have said, both the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs take these cases extremely seriously, which is why HMRC has put in place extra care and support for people who may be affected by tax issues of this and other kinds. The fact remains that we have had a review. I might refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of his colleague, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who said of Sir Amyas Morse who did the review that it was
“a thorough piece of work…we thank him…He has done a great service to Parliament and to the wider public debate.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2020; c. 33.]
He was right about that and the Labour party has been right not to have opposed this policy at any point during its passage through Parliament.

Peter Bone: The problem that Members have on both sides of this House is that ordinary people were duped into something and it has effectively become a retrospective piece of legislation. I thought the way that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), approached this was very reasonable. HMRC is not taking the right approach. Perhaps the Government could look at that again.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have mentioned the extra care and support that HMRC has put in place. I have mentioned the extremely careful approach that it has taken with people who may be facing the loan charge. As he will be aware, it has not initiated insolvency proceedings against any taxpayer for a loan charge debt and that in itself is emblematic of the care and attention that it is taking with this subject.

Sammy Wilson: It is not enough for the Minister to say that people had to take responsibility for their own tax affairs when the information that they were given by HMRC was that there was nothing wrong with these schemes initially, when HMRC passed and signed off tax years for people, and when the head of HMRC has admitted that, in recent months, he had repeatedly tried—this was the outcome of a freedom of information request—to obtain legal analysis to understand the strength of a claim with “very little success”. There  is not even a legal standing for this. How then can the Minister say that it is right to pursue people for things that they were led into, and, indeed, for payments that HMRC was regularising by allowing contractors to use as a means of paying their employees?

Jesse Norman: The right hon. Gentleman raises a whole bunch of questions. Let me address them. There were some contractors working through agencies for HMRC. Where it was discovered that they had used disguised remuneration, those relationships were ended and strong measures have been put in place to prevent recurrence. That is an unfortunate feature of the extended way in which these contract arrangements sometimes work. I do not think that there is any evidence that HMRC has signed off or positively approved the use of any disguised remuneration scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman has an example, he is welcome to send it to me. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the chief executive of HMRC has specifically written to the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group to make it perfectly clear that it has taken those remarks out of context and that what he was doing—as every chief executive of a public agency should do—was putting his own officials under some pressure to provide the justification needed, and rightly so.

Living Standards

Owen Thompson: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on living standards.

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on living standards.

Patricia Gibson: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his policies on living standards.

Steve Barclay: Her Majesty’s Treasury analysis published alongside Budget ’21 has shown that policy interventions in response to covid-19 have, on average, supported the poorest working households most as a proportion of pre-pandemic income.

Owen Thompson: The Government’s plan to increase national insurance will clearly unfairly impact the living standards of young people and the low paid. That is in stark contrast to the Scottish Government’s free education, bus travel for under-25s and the Scottish child payment. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm how many Ministers spoke against this move at Cabinet today and whether this included the Scottish Secretary?

Steve Barclay: I would have thought that, having sought additional powers, the hon. Gentleman would be more interested in reminding the House how his own Government are using the powers that they have. The key issue is that in many areas they are choosing not to use their tax powers—for example, to top up universal credit. He should focus on the alliance that his party has formed with the Greens, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for the oil and gas industry, and counterproductive to growth.

Alan Brown: In 2016, the Tories promised that fuel bills would be lower for everyone on leaving the EU. The reality is that fuel bills are increasing while they make the heartless cut to universal credit. In order to tackle fuel poverty, will the Minister use the net zero review to cut VAT on energy efficiency products, keep new nuclear off electricity bills, provide direct funding for heat decarbonisation and sort out the unfair grid charges on Scottish renewables?

Steve Barclay: Well, I think we should look at what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done. I touched a moment ago on how the covid measures have protected the poorest working households the most. Alongside that, the Budget measures on tax, welfare and spending decisions made since 2019 have, on average, benefited all households this year, with the poorest gaining the most as a percentage of net income. That is the approach that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken and it is one that the Scottish Government should follow.

Patricia Gibson: According to Save the Children, more than 3 million children living in low-income households across the United Kingdom are likely to be affected by the £20 universal credit cut, with half of claimants saying that they will face significant financial impacts as a result and one in seven worrying about affording food. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the cut will push 500,000 people below the poverty line. Will the Minister explain how this squares with the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda?

Steve Barclay: A key way to tackle poverty is to get people into work and then skill them up in their jobs. That is what we have set out through the plan for jobs, and that plan is working. Ultimately, if that is the priority of the Scottish Government, why are they not using the powers they have to prioritise it?

Mel Stride: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to justify raising national insurance to fund social care for the predominantly elderly, when the impact of that tax rise would fall mainly on young people and those who are earning little in the workforce? Does he also recognise that those two groups are the very groups that have been most impacted by the economic consequences of the pandemic?

Steve Barclay: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister will make a statement on this matter shortly, but what he and I would agree on is that the best way is to grow the economy, drive productivity, get people into work and skill them up through work. That is what the plan for jobs is doing, alongside the £600 billion investment in infrastructure over the course of this Parliament as part of levelling up and our commitment to net zero. We need to grow the economy, skill up the workforce and get those who have been impacted by the pandemic back into work as quickly as possible.

Harriett Baldwin: I wonder if the Chief Secretary has had the opportunity to read a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says:
“Material living standards held up surprisingly well through the pandemic…This is an astonishing outcome given the scale of economic disruption”.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took improved on the economic scoring that was forecast for the pandemic, including the figure for unemployment, which will now be 2 million lower at its peak than was estimated. That package of measures has helped to prevent many of the worst outcomes that were forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility as we went into the pandemic.

Paul Maynard: One group whose living standards have been impacted during the pandemic has been low-income individuals who have used buy now, pay later credit products to buy online. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement in the spring of regulation of this sector. Will the Minister update me on the progress being made in regulating the sector given that it is become of increasing importance, as Citizens Advice reported just last week?

Steve Barclay: I understand that by the end of October there will be reassurance on that, and I am happy to take that up with my hon. Friend following this session.

Bridget Phillipson: When the Chancellor increased universal credit eighteen months ago, he said that he wanted
“to look back…and remember how we thought first of others and acted with decency.”
Does the Minister consider that taking £20 a week from millions of families across our country is really an act of decency?

Steve Barclay: I think that £400 billion of support in response to the covid pandemic across our public services and individual businesses shows the scale of measures that the Chancellor has put in place. On the specific issue of universal credit, we were always clear that the uplift was going to be temporary. As it was, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended it for a further six months. But ultimately what divides the two sides of the House is that we believe the best approach is to have a plan for jobs, to get people into work, and to upskill them in those jobs. The Opposition simply do not have a plan at all.

Bridget Phillipson: Let us think about what £20 a week really means. Twenty pounds a week means being able to afford to buy a coat for your children this winter. It means not having to worry about turning on the heating when the weather turns cold. Can the Minister offer any advice to families who work hard and play by the rules about how they should manage with £100 less each and every month?

Steve Barclay: As the hon. Lady knows, alongside the universal credit uplift other measures of support were given. Those are not only my words; I quote the Resolution Foundation, which has said:
“Since the crisis hit, the support schemes introduced by the Government have prevented an unprecedented collapse in GDP from turning into a living standards disaster.”
That is the package of measures put forward by the Government. That is how we have protected people’s  living standards. The key is to have a plan and to get that plan working; it is, and that is helping people back into work.

Christopher Chope: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the living standards of those thousands of public sector employees to whom the Government have given exit payments in excess of £100,000 a year and continue so to do?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue, which he and I have discussed on many occasions. In July I chaired a roundtable on it across Government, and it is prioritised across Departments. We have a manifesto commitment that the Chancellor and I are committed to delivering on. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a £200 million cost to this that we need to tackle. But at the same time we also need to be true to the manifesto, which was not about tackling those on low incomes who had high pay-offs because of the way their pension benefits were structured and those proprietary claims. We need to differentiate between that and the real ill that he is concerned about, which is those on six-figure salaries who are receiving pay-offs. That is something we are prioritising.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not quite sure if that related to the original question, so we are going to have to watch out for that in future.

Alison Thewliss: Scottish hospitality and generosity is world-renowned, but could the Minister explain to us why he thinks that Scottish taxpayers should pay for England’s social care crisis?

Steve Barclay: It is a slightly odd question, because through the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom, it is Scottish jobs that have been protected through the furlough, it is Scottish businesses that have been supported through the self-employment income support scheme and it is the block grant that has provided additional funding to the Scottish Government. The oddity is that they are choosing not to use those uplifts in the Scottish grant to prioritise the things that they come down to Westminster and say they care about.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just suggest to the Minister that it might be easier if he speaks through the Chair?

Alison Thewliss: It would be good if the Minister answered the question, as well. The Prime Minister’s hike in national insurance has been roundly panned, not least by his own Back Benchers and the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). People in Scotland are already feeling the pain of a decade of Tory austerity cuts and the harms caused by Brexit, with the devastation of the £20 a week cut to universal credit still to come, none of which they voted for. Why should my constituents pay for the Prime Minister to break his manifesto pledge with a new poll tax on the poorest who can least afford it?

Steve Barclay: It may be helpful for me to remind the House of the uplift in funding that the Scottish Government have received as a result of the ability of the UK Government to act across the UK. Baseline funding of  £28 billion last year with an additional £8.6 billion of funding—that is £36.6 billion in total—has increased to £40.9 billion this year, so the Scottish Government are getting additional funding. As a result of covid, they have received an additional £14.5 billion, but they are choosing not to prioritise that extra money or to use the additional powers they have on tax or welfare to target the issues they say they care about.

Anthony Browne: At the beginning of this pandemic, like most people I was really worried that unemployment would rise by millions, and I am delighted that it has peaked 2 million below what most people forecast. Unemployment, at 4.7%, is now at historic lows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to raise living standards is to get those without jobs into jobs and, for those who already have jobs, to give them the training and skills they need so that they can get higher-paid jobs? That is exactly what the Government are doing.

Steve Barclay: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is as a result of those measures that unemployment has now fallen for six months in a row and that the OBR is forecasting a peak of 5% to 6%, compared with the previous forecast of 12%. As he rightly says, the peak will be 2 million fewer. It is not just about those who are being helped back into work, however; it is also about the programme of apprenticeships, traineeships, jobs support and the doubling of work coaches that will then help people in work to get into the better jobs that they deserve.

Net Zero Emissions and Green Investment

Bambos Charalambous: What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the Government’s net zero emissions target.

Catherine West: What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the Government’s net zero emissions target.

Virginia Crosbie: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to encourage investment in green (a) industries, (b) growth and (c) jobs.

Jeff Smith: What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the Government’s net zero emissions target.

Julie Marson: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to encourage investment in green (a) industries, (b) growth and (c) jobs.

Kemi Badenoch: The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan demonstrates our commitment to net zero. It sets out £12 billion of new Government investment in green industries. This will create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs in the UK. In addition to this £12 billion, our plan will attract up to three times as much private investment by providing regulatory certainty and robust green finance frameworks.

Bambos Charalambous: The recent Climate Change Committee progress report showed that the Treasury had not fully met a single one of its recommendations in the past year. Does the Minister think this is good enough, and what steps should be taken to rectify that?

Kemi Badenoch: I am afraid I do not think that is what the report has said. What I will say is that we will be releasing many publications this autumn around net zero, not least the net zero review. This final report will be published in advance of COP26. The report will inform sectoral decarbonisation strategies and the net zero strategy, and work on those will continue to develop at pace across Whitehall.

Catherine West: The recent cuts to the international aid budget have undermined the UK’s leadership in advance of COP26, so what urgent steps will the Treasury take to develop a carbon neutral programme of international aid going forward?

Kemi Badenoch: I will ask my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to answer the hon. Lady’s question directly—they are responsible for aid. What I will tell her is that there is a lot of stuff we are doing within our remit on international climate finance action, not least on the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures.

Virginia Crosbie: Time and again, I speak with companies that want a freeport on Anglesey. I want a freeport on Anglesey, and local people want the jobs and local investment that will come with a freeport, but the Welsh Government say and do nothing. Will the Minister please urge the Welsh Government to work with me to deliver this game changer in my constituency of Ynys Môn?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for her letters and her continued campaigning for her constituency. We are working closely with the Welsh Government and remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Wales as soon as possible. I encourage them to work closely with constituency MPs on that. As in England, specific locations will be chosen in a fair, open and transparent allocation process.

Jeff Smith: The Minister must recognise that climate inaction is not just a disaster for the planet but has a huge financial cost and economic consequences. We cannot dodge the critical decisions that we need to decarbonise the economy any more. How exactly will the Government hardwire our net zero targets into every decision in the upcoming spending review?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government have used the Green Book to mandate that policies must be developed and assessed against how well they deliver on our long-term policy aims, including net zero. We did that at spending review 2020, where guidance required Departments to include the greenhouse emissions of bids and their impact on meeting carbon budgets and net zero, and allocations to Departments were informed by that information. That is how we will continue to carry out consideration of climate impacts in fiscal policy.

Julie Marson: I thank the Minister for her response. With more than £10 trillion of assets under management in the UK, there is scope for more green innovation investment via the venture capital sector. I therefore welcome the measures she explained and the regulatory changes being driven by the Treasury, but will she meet me to discuss a potential office for venture, similar to the new Office for Investment, which could provide a centre for expertise and growth in this area?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government recognise the important role of financial markets in supporting the UK’s transition to a net zero economy. The British Business Bank is a Government-owned economic development bank that makes finance markets for smaller businesses work more effectively, and its remit includes venture capital. I note her point about a meeting and believe that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is happy to meet her on this issue.

Abena Oppong-Asare: It is only 55 days until COP26 in Glasgow and households, consumers and businesses urgently need clarity and certainty about how the costs and benefits of our transition to net zero will be shared. Labour’s approach to tackling the climate crisis would have fairness at its heart, because we know that while some are planning to build personal heated swimming pools in their homes, millions of others are struggling with energy bills. The net zero review is supposed to consider fairness. At the last Treasury questions, the Chancellor told my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that the final report would
“of course be published imminently”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 750.]
That was 11 weeks ago. Where is it?

Kemi Badenoch: As I said, the report will be published in advance of COP26, but we have published other things that the hon. Member does not seem to have heard of or read. We have set out ambitious plans about the net zero target and published the energy White Paper, the industrial decarbonisation strategy, the transport decarbonisation plan, which has not happened anywhere else in the world—we are the first country to do a transport decarbonisation plan—and a hydrogen strategy. We will publish the heat and building strategy in due course. The Government have been busy setting out plans on net zero, and we would appreciate it if Opposition parties took some time to read them.

Steven Baker: The Government’s measures will have important consequences for taxpayers and energy bills. Will my hon. Friend therefore set out in detail the cost of net zero and the calculations behind that cost?

Kemi Badenoch: We will put affordability and fairness at the heart of our reforms to reach net zero. Our latest estimates put the costs of net zero at under 2% of GDP—broadly similar to when we legislated for it two years ago—with scope for costs of low-carbon technologies to fall faster than expected. Most of those represent increased investment in growth markets of the future. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. All I would say is that he should wait until the net zero review is published.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and I may not have the same views on net zero, but we share a concern about how the Government will fund it. We will see, for example, a reduction in petrol vehicles, so what will happen to the tax on them? We have also seen yet another failure recently with the green homes grant. What is the fiscal plan for making sure that net zero achieves its targets while we maintain the Exchequer balances?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We recognise that this is an issue under intense speculation. We will publish a strategy that will set out many of the answers to the questions she is posing. What we have said is that we will put affordability and fairness at the heart of our reforms to reach net zero. The fact is that everyone in this House agreed with us when we set that target. For example, we have put in place plans to bring in electric vehicles by 2030. These will require changes not just in how we spend, but in our tax and regulatory system. The answers will come in due course.

Jacob Young: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, may I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s world-leading comprehensive hydrogen strategy, backed up by £105 million of public funding to unlock £4 billion of private investment by 2030? Does the Minister agree with me that this is how we will build back better and create more jobs in places such as Teesside?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I do agree with him: building back better and building back greener are at the heart of this Government’s strategy. I thank him for raising those points, which will benefit Teesside and the north-east in general.

Caroline Lucas: At the weekend, a young activist called Fatima challenged the Chancellor, asking why the Treasury is blocking action on the climate crisis. He replied that the Treasury has committed £12 billion of new money to the 10-point plan, but even that is not true, as he knows, and the President of COP26 has said that actually only a paltry £4 billion is new money. When will the Treasury start committing serious money to the green transition, in the region of the £85 billion that the TUC has said is necessary to put into green investment so that we go into COP26 as climate leaders, not climate laggards?

Kemi Badenoch: I will tell the hon. Lady what the Treasury is doing. We are issuing £15 billion of green bonds over the next year, and launching a world-first green savings bond ahead of COP26 to help finance the Government’s green projects. We set up the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in net zero, backed by £12 billion of capital, which will also help to unlock more than £40 billion of overall investment in infrastructure. We are committing £11.6 billion in international climate finance over the next five years to help developing countries tackle climate change. The Budget also announced three UK-wide competitions that are part of the £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio. We have the towns deal, which is helping people create new green spaces, build back greener, create sustainable transport routes and repurpose empty shops. The fact is that the Treasury is doing everything it can to support the transition to net zero.

Helping Young People into Work: Covid-19

James Daly: What fiscal steps he is taking to help young people into work as part of the economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

Karl McCartney: What fiscal steps he is taking to help young people into work as part of the economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

Rishi Sunak: It is absolutely right that we remain relentlessly focused on helping young people into work, and our plan for jobs does exactly that with a range of initiatives. I would just draw colleagues’ attention to the fantastic youth offer that our jobcentres are rolling out, providing 13 weeks of intensive tailored support for those young people who enter universal credit and creating 140 dedicated youth hubs across the country.

James Daly: In Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington, the Government’s plan for jobs is working, saving jobs and getting people back into employment. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment, may I ask my right hon. Friend to update the House specifically on how schemes such as kickstart are helping young people with employment and training opportunities throughout the country?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does as chair of the APPG on youth employment, and I thank him and his colleagues for their advice as we have developed these initiatives. He is right to highlight kickstart. This is a signature initiative of this Government, providing Government-funded, high-quality jobs for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. It has got off to a fantastic start, with 50,000 kickstarters already having started and thousands more to come.

Karl McCartney: That initial response is helpful, and of course I commend the Chancellor and his Treasury colleagues for their financial support to some businesses over the last 18 months, and I realise important announcements from the Treasury and the Prime Minister are imminent. However, in a city such as Lincoln with such a vibrant hospitality sector, the cumulative impact of successive lockdowns has hit my constituents hard, especially young people, and my right hon. Friend knows that they are disproportionately employed in those businesses that are forced to close. Does the Chancellor agree that we must do everything possible to keep the economy open so that instead of paying young people not to work, we focus on creating well-paid jobs for them?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of hospitality in employing young people, which is why, together with our VAT cut for that sector and indeed £16 billion of business rates reductions, we have helped support all those jobs. He should also know that employers do not pay employers national insurance on those young people under the age of 21, nor on most apprentices up to the age of 25, demonstrating our support to those employers to keep young people in work.

Barry Sheerman: When I was a very young MP, a Conservative Prime Minister introduced a windfall profit tax on the banks. When will this Administration and this Chancellor of the Exchequer have the imagination and leadership to introduce a windfall profit tax on those who have done very well over the last few years, and put it into green apprenticeships, green training and green skills, and do it now?

Rishi Sunak: Talking about young people and financial services, I was recently in Glasgow talking about young people starting exactly what the hon. Gentleman described: new apprenticeships in the financial services industry, growing in Glasgow, supported by this Government who have put more money behind apprenticeships than any previous Government.

Emma Hardy: I am hearing from colleges that fewer level 1 and level 2 students are going to college as they are going straight into work and that is to be commended, but we know that having a level 3 increases people’s earnings potential in the long term and therefore opportunities to obtain that level 3 must be available to those young people as they get older. How can they achieve that, however, when the Chancellor has cut the adult skills budget by half since 2010?

Rishi Sunak: I point the hon. Lady to the Prime Minister’s speech on skills last year when he unveiled this Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, which delivers exactly what she is asking for. Those 10 million adults without a level 3 qualification, who she is absolutely right to highlight, will, for the first time, be able to get one, fully funded by this Government. That is a Conservative Government delivering for people, giving them the skills and opportunities they need.

Matthew Hancock: The combination of the furlough scheme, the kickstart scheme and the youth offer the Chancellor has just discussed shows that his efforts are leading to the UK having one of the fastest economic recoveries in the world. Will he commit to working globally to ensure that the confidence and opportunities this brings are available globally as they increasingly are in the UK?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I want to thank him for two things. First, when he was a Minister he created traineeships, and he will be pleased to know that this Government are tripling the number of them to give young people the best possible start in life, finding new skills and opportunities. Most importantly, this year, because of his success in making sure this country had the fastest roll-out of a vaccine anywhere in the world, we are enjoying the fastest opening up and the fastest economic recovery, and I pay tribute to him for that.

David Linden: The Government announced the kickstart scheme to much fanfare. However, at the moment they publish the kickstarter statistics breakdown by gender and perhaps by race, but why do they not do so by disability? Will the Chancellor rectify that?

Rishi Sunak: I am always happy to look at what more we can do to improve the transparency of our statistics. However, with regard to kickstart in aggregate, I would  just say that there have been 50,000 starts and, when compared with previous versions of similar schemes such as the future jobs fund under the last Labour Government, kickstart is delivering more young people into more jobs at a much faster pace and, importantly, many more of those jobs are in the private sector, not just the public sector.

New Infrastructure Investment

Rob Butler: What fiscal steps he is taking to invest in new infrastructure.

Gareth Davies: What fiscal steps he is taking to incentivise businesses to invest in new infrastructure and equipment.

Rishi Sunak: The Prime Minister is rightly ushering in an infrastructure revolution because infrastructure drives growth and productivity and creates jobs. We are doing that with over £100 billion of investment this year and, thanks to the efforts of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a world-leading UK Infrastructure Bank created and set up in Leeds.

Rob Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all parts of the country can benefit from investment in infrastructure, and that an excellent way of achieving that in my constituency, in support of the substantial housing development there, would be to approve funding for the Aylesbury link of East West Rail, which would also help to achieve our target of net zero?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on making sure that our investment reaches every part of the country, including his constituency. I am pleased to tell him that £760 million has been allocated by the Chief Secretary and the Transport Secretary to deliver East West Rail, and I understand that the Department for Transport is currently working with the East West Rail Company to figure out the best possible way to serve Aylesbury. I hope that my hon. Friend will engage with that process.

Gareth Davies: The Infrastructure Forum recently published a report that showed clearly that the super deduction is already having an impact, accelerating investment by businesses. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging businesses across Grantham and Stamford to take up the relief, and does he agree that this is exactly the kind of investment that will boost jobs and level up our country?

Rishi Sunak: From the Office for Budget Responsibility to the Bank of England, many people have described the super deduction as doing exactly what my hon. Friend has said, and that is why we know it is working. I recently visited BT, for example, which, because of the super deduction, is now increasing the speed of its roll-out to millions more houses and creating thousands of new jobs in the process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I encourage his businesses to take up the super deduction, and, indeed, we see that; a Deloitte survey recently showed that business intentions to invest in this country are the highest they have been in years.

Alison McGovern: I am afraid that I must tell the Chancellor that his infrastructure revolution is not very noticeable in cities in the north of England, which grind to a halt at rush hour. They desperately need infrastructure investment, particularly in public transport. Can he tell the House when he last met our city region Mayors in the north of England, and what his plans are for fiscal reform that will help them invest in public transport infrastructure?

Rishi Sunak: My entire team meet the regional Mayors all the time, and of course we will do so in the run-up to the spending review and the Budget. I agree with the hon. Lady that intra-city transportation is important. Unlocking the economic potential of our cities is important to driving our economic recovery. That is why last year, in my first Budget, we announced £4.2 billion for intra-city transport settlements for our largest several cities outside London so that they enjoy the same long-term funding as London and can invest in exactly the types of schemes that she describes.

Chris Elmore: That investment in infrastructure does not get to the south Wales railway service. DFT Ministers keep announcing increased services along the main line in south Wales, which includes Pencoed in my Ogmore constituency, but no increased investment in stations, level crossings or, indeed, the track. When will the Chancellor get a grip and start investing in much-needed railway infrastructure in south Wales?

Rishi Sunak: I am not sure that I entirely recognise the aggregate picture that the hon. Gentleman presents. Rail investment over the course of this Parliament is at record levels, under CP5—control period 5—and then CP6, to give the technical terms. I am very happy to take away the specific schemes. He will understand that those are a matter for the Welsh Government, but I am happy to facilitate with the Department for Transport as required.

Stephen Hammond: I commend my right hon. Friend for his commitment to infrastructure, and I particularly welcome the UK Infrastructure Bank. Will he consider introducing an infrastructure bond so that long-term pension funds can invest in the future of this country too?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right. He has previously highlighted the importance of unlocking pension fund capital to invest in long-term assets such as infrastructure in the UK. He will know that the Prime Minister and I wrote to pension funds just recently discussing that, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is actively working on creating a long-term asset fund, a new vehicle to unlock exactly the investment that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) wants in exactly the type of infrastructure that this country needs.

End of Universal Credit Uplift

Ben Lake: What recent discussions his Department has had with the (a) Department for Work and Pensions and (b) Welsh Government on the impact of the end of the £20 uplift to universal credit on recipients of that benefit.

Ian Byrne: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of ending the £20 uplift to universal credit.

Stephen Timms: What discussions he plans to have with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of ending the £20 uplift to universal credit.

Alex Davies-Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of ending the £20 uplift to universal credit.

Rishi Sunak: The Government have always been clear that the £20 increase to universal credit was a temporary measure, much like furlough and our other interventions to support this country through the acute phases of this crisis, but we are not done supporting those who need our help. This Government will always be on their side, and that is why we have created our plan for jobs. On the Government side of the House, we know that the best way to help people is to give them the skills and the opportunities they need to find high-quality work, and that is what the plan for jobs is delivering.

Ben Lake: Ending the uplift will mean £286 million less for families in Wales, and risks plunging 275,000 families into poverty. Figures from the Bevan Foundation suggest that families in Ceredigion stand to lose £5.7 million in support. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the economic impact of ending the £20 a week uplift for communities in Wales?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman talks about those in poverty. The statistics most recently published show that 200,000 fewer people are living in absolute poverty in the United Kingdom than when this Government came into office. With regard to the economic impacts, I think all colleagues in the House can see the strength in our labour market: the need for businesses to find people and the fact that this Government are giving them the skills they need to get those jobs. That is the right strategy to help people and that is the economic strategy this Government are pursuing.

Ian Byrne: While the Chancellor was pondering the colour of the tiles for his new swimming pool and the site of his new tennis court for his country mansion this summer, back in the real world 20% of my constituency of Liverpool West Derby are facing a £20 a week cut to universal credit and sleepless nights about how they will survive. Can the Chancellor tell me what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the cut, and how many of the 12,530 people in Liverpool West Derby they estimate will be forced into poverty?

Rishi Sunak: I do not accept that people will be forced into poverty, because we know, and all the evidence and history tells us, that the best way to take people out of poverty is to find them high quality work. We are creating jobs at a rapid rate, with eight months of continuous growth in employment supported by this Government: traineeships, sector-based work academies,  apprenticeships, kickstart. You name it, we are delivering it to help those people in Liverpool to get the skills and the jobs they need to help support their families.

Stephen Timms: Forty per cent. of the people who claim universal credit are already in work. Does the Chancellor understand that they will be very hard hit by this cut, which is the biggest overnight benefit cut in our history?

Rishi Sunak: Of course there are people already in work who are on universal credit, but our plan for jobs helps them too. We increased the national living wage this year by an inflation-busting amount—£350 a year to help those families. We talked earlier about the lifetime skills guarantee, about apprenticeships, about skills boot camps. Those are all ways the Government are supporting people; each one of those initiatives, by the way, is worth thousands of pounds of support. Those people will benefit from those increased skills and benefit from guaranteed new job interviews or higher wages at the end of it. That is the right strategy to help those people in work.

Alex Davies-Jones: This week, the charity Action for Children highlighted that a street cleaner with two children in private rented accommodation is already on average £729 worse off as a result of Conservative cuts since 2010, but that will soar to over £1,700 as a result of the Chancellor’s planned cut to universal credit. So I ask the Chancellor: how exactly are families meant to manage?

Rishi Sunak: Again, what we know is that children growing up in workless households are five times more likely to be in poverty than those whose parents work. That is why we are supporting their parents to get into work and why almost 800,000 fewer children are living in workless households than when this Government first came into office. That is the right way to support those families. Of course, there are other bits of our welfare system that we have maintained the generosity of, but when it comes to universal credit or employment, we on this side of the House we will support their parents into work and, crucially, with their childcare costs. Mr Speaker, we forget that 85% of childcare costs for people on universal credit are covered to support parents into work, which we know will make a difference to those children.

Topical Questions

Stephen Timms: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Rishi Sunak: Over a year ago, the Government launched their plan for jobs, a comprehensive and ambitious plan to help people back into work to earn more and to gain the skills they need to succeed in the jobs of tomorrow. The latest data shows that our GDP and our economy is recovering quickly, unemployment is falling, jobs are being created, and, indeed, household incomes have been protected. All of that tells me that this Government’s plan for jobs is working.

Stephen Timms: Cutting universal credit by £20 a week will hit working families very hard. It will leave support for unemployed families at the lowest real terms level for over 30 years. It will undermine the  recovery and scupper the prospects for levelling up. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand why every single former Work and Pensions Secretary since 2010 has opposed his cut?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. Gentleman talks about economic recovery. We are forecast to grow faster this year than any other country in the G7. The recovery is under way. Jobs are being created, people are getting into work, wages are rising. That is the right strategy for us to pursue. Our plan is working and we will stick to it.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Chancellor provide an update on the follow-up to the discussions we have had on maintained nursery schools, and will he urgently bring forward a long-term funding settlement for these brilliant schools?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue, which I know is of particular importance to her and her constituency. I assure her that I have spoken to my team about it and, as part of the spending review, we will further those discussions with the Department for Education. I look forward to the Chief Secretary and she and I talking about this issue again.

Rachel Reeves: The Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s plans to increase national insurance will hit workers and businesses hard at the worst possible time. The British Chambers of Commerce described it as a “drag anchor” on jobs growth. The Federation of Small Businesses stated:
“If this hike happens, fewer jobs will be created”.
The TUC said that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while “leaving the wealthy untouched”. We agree. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore explain why he is choosing a tax on jobs rather than on other forms of income?

Rishi Sunak: I am very pleased to see the Labour party finally focus on the importance of jobs in this House. We also agree that it is important to support companies to hire people, which is why there is no national insurance payable on those employing people under the age of 21, on most apprentices up to the age of 25 or on people who are going to be employed in new freeports. And, because of the steps that Conservative Governments have made to the employment allowance, 40% of all small businesses pay no employer’s national insurance at all.

Rachel Reeves: You cannot have it both ways. Cutting national insurance either benefits jobs or it does not. The Chancellor told voters at the election:
“Our plans are to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting national insurance”.
That promise is now in flames. The Chancellor is not cutting national insurance; he is putting it up. It cannot be right that nurses and builders are set to pay hundreds of pounds more each year in national insurance, yet those getting their incomes from a large portfolio of shares, stocks and property will pay not a penny more. Labour cannot and will not support this Tory Government’s manifesto-breaking, economically damaging and unfair tax on jobs. So let me ask the Chancellor again: why will this Government not fund health and social care in a way that is fair for families and for businesses?

Rishi Sunak: I will be brief, Mr Speaker. When the hon. Lady was appointed shadow Chancellor, she went out of her way to say that any policies that the Labour party put forward on her watch would be “fully costed and we will explain how they are paid for”. We have heard about uplifts to welfare. We have heard about more money for public sector pay. We have heard about opposing every difficult and responsible decision that this Government have made. We have not heard once how the Labour party will pay for anything and we know what happened last time around when it did that.

Luke Evans: The levelling-up fund is about improving a region. In Bosworth, we are putting forward the Twycross zoo for its national centre of conservation and education. It will be a world-leading scientific, education and conservation centre, driving tourism and the local economy. It is backed by the borough council, the county council, the local enterprise partnership and the midlands engine. Would the Chancellor like to come and visit it and, failing that, would he like to meet me to discuss how we can make this a symbol of the levelling up of the nation?

Steve Barclay: I do not know about the Chancellor, but I am sure my children would love to come and visit the zoo. I thank my hon. Friend for putting forward a bid for the levelling-up fund. As he will know, bids are currently subject to competitive assessment against objective criteria, but more generally, I think the whole House will welcome the fact that zoos are once again fully open to the public this summer. They provide a wide range of valuable benefits.

Kenny MacAskill: Scottish communities, other than those in Shetland, failed to benefit from the North sea oil and gas bounty landing on their shores. Now that the North sea’s offshore wind is casting ashore on East Lothian, will the Treasury ensure that East Lothian will actually benefit, as opposed to it all simply being transmission-stationed down south? Or will it go the same way as Scotland’s oil and gas: down to the Treasury?

Kemi Badenoch: We support the UK oil and gas sector, especially as gas is a transition fuel to net zero. The sector supports 147,000 jobs directly in its supply chains. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman raises; if he would like to write to me with more detail, I think I will be able to give him more comprehensive answers.

David Evennett: I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for all his determination to create new jobs and new investment and to upskill the workforce; I believe it is paying dividends, as we are seeing in the economy. Does he agree that further education colleges have a vital role in upskilling our workforce, both young and not so young, to get the best jobs for the future?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the important role of FE colleges, which is why I was pleased in the last Budget to invest billions over this Parliament to improve the infrastructure and the quality of our FE estate. With the Prime Minister’s lifetime  skills guarantee, FE colleges will be instrumental in delivering to all adults the extra qualification that they need to get better-paid jobs. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that.

Tan Dhesi: The Government should lead by example with their spending power and with the design of public contracts to buy more from Great Britain, as Labour would, but the UK strategic steel sector has been neglected by this Conservative Government. Highly skilled jobs have been lost because a huge proportion of our steel, including for HS2, is purchased from other nations. Will the Chancellor explain why his Government do not even have a non-binding target for the use of our own steel in our national public infrastructure projects?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a very valid point. It is right that we maximise the opportunities from domestic suppliers; my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is focusing on that through the industrial strategy. It is also linked to targeting the seven innovation sectors funded through the significant uplift in our research and development budget.

Daniel Kawczynski: We are working hard in Shropshire on a £500 million investment in modernising A&E services in our local hospital. There is a funding shortage; I have written to the Chancellor on the issue and would be very grateful for a response. There is nothing more important than modernising A&E services for the safety of our patients and constituents.

Steve Barclay: I know that that is a very important constituency issue, and my hon. Friend has championed it frequently. He will know that, through the long-term plan, there is a £33.9 billion uplift in core funding, in addition to the other funding through covid and other measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am very happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend; I know that it is a key constituency issue, and he is right to focus on it.

Kate Osborne: Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership has revealed that nearly three quarters of disabled children have regressed in managing their conditions during the pandemic as vital services have been delayed. Ahead of the forthcoming spending review, will the Chancellor consider offering a lifeline to families and funding dedicated recovery to help disabled children and their families to catch up on missed services?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I would be very happy to make sure that it is considered as part of the spending review.

Martin Vickers: The Chancellor referred earlier to the record amounts being invested in the rail network. May I urge him to ensure that one of the projects that he supports is an east-west freight corridor linking the Humber ports to the west coast? That would greatly maximise the benefits of freeport status; it would also aid the levelling-up agenda.

Steve Barclay: I am in no doubt about the importance and the merits of my hon. Friend’s approach to freeports, not least after an early morning meeting that he and I had—last week, I think—on that very topic. As part of the integrated rail plan, we are looking at how we link that to levelling up across the UK. He is quite right to highlight the growth and productivity opportunity that freeports offer.

Peter Kyle: At the last Budget, the Chancellor gave a £25 billion tax break to the top 1% of businesses in the form of the super deduction, but when the school catch-up tsar came to him asking for £15 billion over a three-year period, he said that he could not fund
“everybody who comes knocking on my door.”
Why is it that when an Amazon-style business comes knocking, the door is wide open, but when students come knocking, asking for money to get over the challenges of the past few years, the door is slammed in their face?

Rishi Sunak: That is absolutely not right. When it comes to the super deduction, what the Labour party will never understand is that we want to support businesses to create jobs. That is what the super deduction does. I just gave the hon. Gentleman the example of BT creating thousands of new jobs because of the super deduction. When it comes to education, this Govt have invested £3 billion—£800 per pupil—in helping children to catch up with lost education, on top of a record increase in schools funding, which means that per-pupil funding in real terms at the end of this Parliament will be the highest it has been in over a decade.

Katherine Fletcher: Jobs are the most important way of helping communities to move forward. Those who have been out of work for 12 months or more can access the restart scheme, worth nearly £3 billion. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that part of his plan is helping everyone to have proper, decent work and decent training to enable them to get the right job?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight not only the importance of restart to the long-term unemployed, but how it sits alongside the kickstart scheme, the tripling of traineeships and the boot camps for skills. That is part of a plan for jobs that is working.

Alex Davies-Jones: Will the Chancellor clarify which Department is paying the £200 million for the Prime Minister’s vanity yacht? What does it say about this Conservative Government’s warped priorities when the Chancellor approves that while planning to cut universal credit for those who need it the most?

Rishi Sunak: This Government are proud of the record investment that we have made in our armed forces—a record settlement for the next few years to support our forces and the work that they do around the world to ensure that we can play our responsible role.
We will end on this note, I think. We have had a good debate today, but one thing is clear: the difference between us and the Labour party. We believe in supporting  people into work, we believe in supporting their skills, and, crucially, we believe in our plan for jobs, because it is working.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Chancellor for his willingness to make extremely difficult decisions to fix the crisis in waiting lists in the NHS and the problems in the social care system. The Health and Social Care Committee heard this morning that we need 4,000 more doctors to tackle the backlog. Does he agree that this is about reform as well as money, particularly in respect of the way we plan our workforce?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend speaks on these matters with extreme authority and experience, and I thank him for all his engagement on them with me and others. He is right to want to make sure that we have a long-term plan for people in the NHS. He will know that we are committed to delivering 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more primary care appointments, but as part of that plan we must ensure that we get the number of GPs right as well, and I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend on that.

Angela Eagle: Given that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already decided to break their manifesto commitment on overseas aid   and are now gearing up to break their solemn manifesto promises on the tax lock and the pensions triple lock, why should any voter believe ever again that a Tory manifesto promise is worth the paper it is written on?

Rishi Sunak: What people know they get from this Conservative Government is a Government who are on their side, a Government who are delivering their priorities, whether their priority is 50,000 more nurses, 20,000 more police officers, record investment in every part of our country, or having a Government who are creating jobs and prosperity wherever people live. It says in that document that this is a people’s Government, and that is what we are delivering.

David Morris: I know that this Government are listening to the levelling-up agenda, especially in the north of England, and on that note I should like to suggest that the best way of getting people back into work is putting forward new initiatives. Will the Chancellor meet me shortly to talk about Eden Project North?

Rishi Sunak: I should be very happy to.

Health and Social Care

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on the Government’s plans for health and social care. Our national health service is the pride of our whole United Kingdom, and all the more so after it has been there for us during the worst pandemic in a century, treating almost half a million patients, administering more than 88 million vaccines and saving countless lives. The inevitable consequence of this necessary and extraordinary action is that covid has placed massive pressures on our NHS. As we stayed at home to protect the NHS, thousands of people did not come forward for the treatment they needed. Like those who suffered from covid, these are all people we know: your aunt who needs a new hip, your neighbour who has problems with their heart and needs a pacemaker, or your friend at work who thinks that they should get that lump or cough checked out. So we must now help the NHS to recover, to be able to provide this much needed care to our constituents and the people we love, and we must provide the funding to do so now.
We not only have to pay for the operations and treatments that people decided not to have during the pandemic; we need to pay good wages for the 50,000 nurses who will enable that treatment and who can help us to tackle waiting lists that could otherwise expand to 13 million over the next few years. We now need to go beyond the record funding we have already provided, and we need to go further than the 48 hospitals and 50 million more GP appointments that are already in our plan. So today we are beginning the biggest catch-up programme in NHS history, tackling the covid backlogs by increasing hospital capacity to 110% and enabling 9 million more appointments, scans and operations. As a result, while waiting lists will get worse before they get better, the NHS will aim to be treating around 30% more elective patients by 2024-25 than it was before covid.
We will also fix the long-term problems of health and social care that have been so cruelly exposed by covid. [Interruption.] The Labour party certainly failed to tackle them. But having spent £407 billion or more to support lives and livelihoods throughout the pandemic—from furlough to vaccines—it would be wrong for me to say that we can pay for this recovery without taking the difficult but responsible decisions about how we finance it. It would be irresponsible to meet the costs of this permanent additional investment in health and social care from higher borrowing and higher debt.
So from next April we will create a new UK-wide 1.25% health and social care levy on earned income, hypothecated in law to health and social care, with dividends rates increasing by the same amount. This will raise almost £36 billion over the next three years, with money from the levy going directly to health and social care across the whole of our United Kingdom. This will not pay for pay awards for middle management; it will go straight to the frontline at a time when we need to get more out of our health and social care system than ever before. It will enable radical innovation to improve the speed and quality of care, including better screening equipment to diagnose serious diseases such as cancer more quickly; designated surgical facilities so that non-urgent patients are no longer competing with  A&E; faster GP access to specialists, so people do not have to wait months to see someone in hospital to find out whether something is wrong; and new digital technology so that doctors can monitor patients remotely in their homes.
We will do all this in a way that is right, reasonable and fair. Some will ask why we do not increase income tax or capital gains tax instead, but income tax is not paid by businesses, so the whole burden would fall on individuals, roughly doubling the amount that a basic rate taxpayer could expect to pay, and the total revenue from capital gains tax amounts to less than £9 billion this year. Instead, our new levy will share the cost between individuals and businesses, and everyone will contribute according to their means, including those above state pension age. So those who earn more will pay more, and because we are also increasing dividends tax rates, we will be asking better-off business owners and investors to make a fair contribution too. In fact, the highest-earning 14% will pay around half the revenues. No one earning less than £9,568 will pay a penny, and the majority of small businesses will be protected, with 40% of all businesses paying nothing at all.
Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own systems, we will direct money raised through the levy to their health and social care services. In total, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will benefit from an extra £2.2 billion a year and, as this is about 15% more than they will contribute through the levy, it will create a Union dividend worth £300 million.
However, we cannot just put more money in; we need reform and change. We need to build back better from covid. When the covid storm broke last year, 30,000 hospital beds in England were occupied by people who could have been better cared for elsewhere and who wanted to be better cared for elsewhere. That is 30,000 out of 100,000 hospital beds in our NHS, costing billions. Those beds cannot be used by people needing cancer care or hip operations, making it harder than ever to deal with the growing backlog in our NHS.
Too often, people were in hospital beds because they or their relatives were worried about the cost of care in a residential home, and that same fear kept many others at home without any care at all. This anxiety affects millions of people up and down the country: the fear that a condition such as dementia, one of nature’s bolts from the blue, could lead to the total liquidation of their assets, their lifetime savings and their home—the loss of everything, however great or small, they might otherwise pass on to their children—while sufferers from other diseases, who have to be in hospital for the majority of their treatment, have their care paid for in full by the NHS.
Governments have ducked this problem for decades. Parliament even voted to fix it, yet that 30,000 figure is an indictment of the failure to do so. There can be no more dither and delay. We know we cannot rely solely on private insurance because demand would be too low for insurers to offer an affordable price, and a universal system of free care for all would be needlessly expensive when those who can afford to contribute to their care should do so.
Instead, the state should target its help at protecting people against the catastrophic fear of losing everything to pay for the cost of their care, and that is what this Government will do. We are setting a limit on what people can be asked to pay, and we will be working with  the financial services industry to innovate and to help people insure themselves against expenditure up to that limit.
Wherever you live, whatever your age, your income or your condition, from October 2023 no one starting care will pay more than £86,000 over their lifetime, and no one with assets of less than £20,000 will have to make any contribution from their savings or housing wealth—up from £14,000 today. Meanwhile, anyone with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will be eligible for some means-tested support. This new upper capital limit of £100,000 is more than four times the current limit, helping many more people with modest assets.
As we fix this long-term, long-standing problem in social care, we will also address the fears that many have about how their loved ones will be looked after by investing in the quality of care, in carers themselves, and by integrating health and care in England so that older people and disabled people are cared for better, with dignity and in the right setting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be bringing forward a White Paper on integration later this year.
You can’t fix the covid backlogs without giving the NHS the money it needs; you can’t fix the NHS without fixing social care; you can’t fix social care without removing the fear of losing everything to pay for social care; and you can’t fix health and social care without long-term reform. The plan that this Government are setting out today—the plan I am setting out today—will fix all of those problems together. Of course, no Conservative government ever want to raise taxes, and I will be honest with the House: I accept that this breaks a manifesto commitment, which is not something I do lightly, but a global pandemic was in no one’s manifesto. I think that the people of this country understand that in their bones and can see the enormous steps this Government and the Treasury have taken.
After all the extraordinary actions that have been taken to protect lives and livelihoods over the last 18 months, this is the right, reasonable and fair approach, enabling our amazing NHS to come back strongly from the crisis; tackling the covid backlogs; funding our nurses; making sure that people get the care and treatment they need, in the right place, at the right time; and ending a chronic and unfair anxiety for millions of people and their families up and down this country. I commend this statement to the House.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement—I think I had almost as much notice as the Cabinet. May I also thank everybody who works in the NHS and social care? During the darkest days of the pandemic they kept our health service from collapsing, they looked after the elderly when others could not and they rolled out the vaccine, which has finally provided the light at the end of the tunnel. Despite their efforts, we are facing the toughest winter in the history of our health service. Not only do we have the threat of another covid surge, but waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment have reached record levels, we risk cancer survival rates going backwards for the first time ever, and social care remains neglected and strained. It is a crisis, but how did we get here?
The pandemic has undoubtedly placed the NHS under huge strain, but that is only part of the story. A decade of Conservative neglect weakened the NHS. Waiting lists had spiralled—up 2 million before the pandemic. Targets were missed, on cancer, on accident and emergency, and on mental health, before the pandemic. The same is true on social care, with £8 billion cut, despite growing demand, before the pandemic. Carers were on poverty wages, without secure contracts, before the pandemic. There were 100,000 vacancies before the pandemic. And the Prime Minister has just referenced the 30,000 hospital beds occupied by those who should go into the community—this is before the pandemic—and he called that an “indictment of failure”. Who had been in government for 10 years at that stage? Just remind me. Prime Minister, an “indictment of failure” is an accurate description of the situation in our health service and social care before the pandemic, so the pretence that he is “only here” because of the pandemic is not going to wash. He is putting a sticking plaster over gaping wounds that his party inflicted. He made that commitment on social care before the pandemic, and he said he would pay for it without raising taxes before the pandemic.
Yes, the NHS urgently needs more investment, but the backlog will not be cleared unless the Government hit the 18-week target set out in the NHS constitution—the Prime Minister did not mention that. It was set and it was met by the last Labour Government. Let me ask a direct question: if there is to be improvement, Prime Minister, can you commit today to hitting the target and clearing the backlog by the end of this Parliament—yes or no? I know he likes to avoid these questions, but if he cannot answer that basic question, it is clear he has not got a plan.
Let me turn to social care. Under these proposals, people will still face substantial costs. I heard what the Prime Minister said, so I have another direct question for him: can the Prime Minister guarantee that under his plan no one will have to sell their home to fund their own care—yes or no? [Hon. Members: “He just told you.”] Well, let us hear him make the commitment, at the Dispatch Box, that under his plan no one will have to sell their own home to fund their own care, and then we will come back to it.
Social care is about so much more than this. The blunt and uncomfortable truth is that under the Prime Minister’s plans the quality of care received will not improve—there is no plan for that. People will still go without the care that they need—there is no plan for that. Unpaid family carers will still be pushed to breaking point—there is no plan for that. Working-age adults with disabilities will have no more control over their lives—there is no plan for that. Pay and conditions will not improve for care workers—there is no plan for that. Let me spell it out: a poorly paid care worker will pay more tax for the care that they are providing without a penny more in their pay packet and without a secure contract.

Boris Johnson: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister shakes his head; my sister is a poorly paid care worker, Prime Minister, so I know this at first hand.
This is a tax rise that breaks a promise that the Prime Minister made at the last election, a promise that all Conservative Members made—every single one of them.  It is a tax rise on young people, supermarket workers and nurses; a tax rise that means that a landlord renting out dozens of properties will not pay a penny more, but the tenants working in full-time jobs will; and a tax rise that places another burden on businesses just as they are trying to get back on their feet. Read my lips: the Tories can never again claim to be the party of low tax.
The alternative is obvious: a timetable and plan to clear waiting lists, just as we did under the last Labour Government, and a comprehensive reform plan for social care that deals with the inadequacies that I just pointed out and drives up the quality of provision—not just tinkering with the funding model. We do need to ask those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, and that includes asking much more of wealthier people, including in respect of income from stocks, shares, dividends and property. [Interruption.] Chancellor, I was listening. The Chancellor knows the numbers just as well as I do—he will have done the sums and we have done them. Tinkering and fiddling with dividends will not do it. The Government are placing the primary burden on working people and businesses struggling to get by.
As I have said to the Prime Minister, if the Government come forward with a plan to genuinely fix the crisis in social care and they have a fair funding model, yes, we will work together. Thousands of families who are struggling with the current system and only want the best for their loved ones deserve nothing less.

Boris Johnson: Now we know why over decades the Labour Government totally refused to deal with this problem, and now we know why both Blair and Brown failed to do it: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has absolutely no plan. I was waiting, and I am amazed that he sat down. What is his answer to the backlogs in the NHS? What is his answer to the problems in social care? The Opposition have absolutely no plan. They have no idea how they would raise the money.
Let me answer some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions. We will of course be investing in social care. I thank his sister for what she is doing in social care, but we have lifted people’s wages across the country with record increases in the living wage; we are investing in 700,000 training places for people in social care; and we are making sure that we invest £500 million—that is in the plan I announced today—in the social care workforce.
What this plan will also do is enable us to get our wonderful NHS back on its feet and enable it to deal with the backlogs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman totally failed to explain how a Labour Government would do that. One year of capital gains tax would not even begin to deal with this problem. He has not got a solution and it is deeply irresponsible of him to come to this place without having any kind of alternative.
Let us be in no doubt: if we did what we have heard from the Labour party over the past few weeks, we would still be in lockdown, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed coming out of stage 4; we would have absolutely nothing by way of dealing with the NHS backlogs; and after decades of inertia from the Labour party we would have absolutely no way of  dealing with the anxiety of millions of families across this country who face the prospect of catastrophic social care costs.
This Government are dealing with those things—we are dealing with all of them. We are getting on with it. We are taking the decisive action. We are doing it all together. This is the Government who get on and deal with the people’s priorities; this is the Government who tackle social care; and, indeed, this is the party of the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: Raising taxes is an incredibly difficult thing for any Conservative Government to do, so I thank the Prime Minister for biting the bullet on this intractable issue that I and many former Health Secretaries have wrestled with.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the demographic challenge—which I know he is personally trying to address with a bit of population growth in Downing Street—means that whether someone pays insurance in America, social insurance in Germany or taxes in the UK, everyone is going to pay more for their health and care? Any Government have a responsibility to make sure that resources are allocated where the electorate’s priorities are, and in this country that is health and social care.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his support but for all the campaigning and hard work that he did when he was Secretary of State—the first Secretary of State for both health and social care because he sees that the two things go together, unlike the Labour party. What he said is entirely correct.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. Let me quote from it:
“Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own systems, we will direct money raised through the levy to their health and social care services.”
Let me tell the Prime Minister that health is devolved to the Scottish Government. The Prime Minister can get his mitts off our health system, because the people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to run health and they certainly do not trust the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Quite rightly, we heard the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; I expect everybody to listen to the leader of the SNP.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we have an attack on devolution, we have the baying mob of the Tories trying to shout down the voices from Scotland.
Government briefings in advance of the statement on social care told us that this was supposedly a key part of securing the Prime Minister’s legacy in office. Well, the Prime Minister is certainly creating a legacy, but it is definitely not the one in his vivid imagination. The real legacy of this Government is now well defined: a Tory Government who blatantly break manifesto promises and blatantly break international law.
It is telling that as we hopefully emerge from the covid crisis, the first act of this Prime Minister is to impose this regressive tax. The scandal of the tax hike is that it will fall hardest on the young and the lowest  paid—the two groups that have suffered the worst economic consequences of the pandemic. Pre-covid and post covid, the pattern is the same, and this Government have learned nothing. Westminster keeps adding to the growing burden that young people face while stripping them of the benefits that previous generations enjoyed.
The unfairness of this tax hike will be especially felt in Scotland. The Scottish Government are responsible for social care and already funds provision—including SNP policies such as free personal and nursing care—from existing budgets and tax receipts. We have done it. As the Prime Minister well knows, by raising this levy across the UK, the Tories are taxing Scottish workers twice and forcing them to pay the bill for social care in England as well as at home in Scotland. This is the Prime Minister’s poll tax on Scottish workers to pay for English social care. Scottish people remember that it is this Prime Minister who said that
“a pound spent in Croydon was of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of Strathclyde and across Scotland why he is now going after the pounds in their pockets to solve a social care problem in Westminster, which has failed to fix problems in Croydon and right across England? If their pound is really of less value, as the Prime Minister claims, why are we paying the price? Is he willing to stand up and explain to the families in Scotland why we are being hit by another Tory poll tax?

Boris Johnson: The NHS is a UK institution and we are all proud of it, and we are proud of what NHS Scotland does as well. The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about those who pay this tax. The burden falls most heavily on those who have the broadest shoulders, as it should, and it is the richest 14% who pay at least half the taxation. As I have just explained to the House, there is a massive Union dividend of £300 million across the whole of the United Kingdom, and the whole of the UK will find that there is more money for health and social care, which is, I think, what the people of Scotland will understand.

Andrea Leadsom: There will be millions of people right across the country who are so relieved today that, at last, the matter of health and social care will be resolved, with fairness to everyone. Can the Prime Minister reassure the many people who are concerned about prevention? We need early intervention, providing support for families with the very youngest children in our society, so that they too can have healthy and fulfilled lives throughout the United Kingdom.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that she does on this issue of early years. She and I have campaigned on this together. I have listened to her attentively over many years and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is determined to ensure that we get the proper funding for early years because the investment that we make in those first three years repays society and families massively.

Margaret Hodge: Let us set aside for a moment the Prime Minister’s unbridled record on reneging on his promises, because, today, he has chosen what I consider to be the least progressive  option to fix both our health and social care system.  It is unfair between generations, unfair between individuals and unfair between those who derive their income from assets or from work. He is ignoring a raft of better alternatives: raising income tax; and making dividend tax equivalent to income tax or capital gains tax. Why?

Boris Johnson: The simple reason that I gave earlier is that none of those measures raise anything like the funding that we need. I have explained that very clearly, and I think that colleagues understand it and I think the country understands it. People are very suspicious. They know that this country has been through an enormous fiscal impact from the pandemic. They know that the Government have put their arms round people and spent £407 billion. They would be very suspicious of a Government who pretend that they can get the NHS back on its feet without some kind of serious, responsible, fair, fiscal effort and that is what we are doing.

Steve Brine: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for gripping this issue. We are not in Government to be afraid of doing anything for fear of offending anyone. I will study the plans that the PM has promised to set out and I thank him for them. On behalf of my constituents and their families trapped right now in the spiral of rising care costs and fast disappearing resources, may I urge him and the Health Secretary, as we develop the new system that he has promised, to consider those for whom this is an issue in the present and not just many years into the future.

Boris Johnson: I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The tragedy of decades of failure to tackle this matter is that people are now facing these costs. What we are doing is investing—as we have done throughout the pandemic—about £6 billion, I think, in dealing with the immediate costs of social care to try to help people through this very difficult time. What this package offers is a way of developing a long-term solution, enabling, we hope, the private sector to come in and give people a long-term plan to fix the costs of their own social care, knowing that the Government will remove the risk of those catastrophic costs. That is the advantage of what we are doing today.

Jon Trickett: Putting aside the unfairness of the national insurance tax rise that the Prime Minister is proposing, is it not the case that the expenditure cap will be his poll tax? In his Uxbridge constituency, the average price of a house is £500,000; in parts of mine it is £130,000. That would leave people in his constituency with an inheritance of more than £410,000 per family, and in mine £44,000 per family. That is unjust and unfair. It is not about levelling up, is it, Prime Minister? It is about doubling down on everything that is wrong, and yet again the poorest will pay the most.

Boris Johnson: This is a massively progressive measure that increases the floor on people’s liabilities four times. It protects people up and down the country from catastrophic costs, which anybody can face. Everybody across the country will benefit not only in the investment in social care and in care workers, but in  making sure that we deal now and deal properly with the NHS backlogs and their effect on our NHS, which is what this country wants to see.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me just say to Members that we will be running this statement for around an hour, so, please, let us try to rush on and get through.

Nickie Aiken: During the summer recess, I spent a week looking after my father who has advanced Alzheimer’s as my mother had a respite holiday. I pay tribute to all those who look after their loved ones in similar circumstances and all those who work in the care service. I certainly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. May I seek assurances that, through the health and social care levy, money raised will go to fund local authorities that do so much brilliant work in this area as well as the NHS?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend asks the question that everybody wants to be certain of. Absolutely, this is a legally hypothecated levy, but we will ensure that the funds that are fixed for social care go to social care so that we deal with the problem of the catastrophic costs. This will not be dispensed by the NHS, but by the Treasury in the normal course of Government spending.

Edward Davey: I am a carer and I have been a carer for most of my life. Like millions of others caring for their elderly, ill or disabled family members, I have desperately wanted a plan to fix the country’s social care crisis after the Conservatives failed to implement the Lib-Dem plan legislated for in 2014, but this is not that plan. Where is the plan for the care staff to fill the 120,000 vacancies so that there are people to provide the care? Where is the plan for working-age adult care—care for physically and learning-disabled adults, which is the fastest growing care challenge? Where is the plan for the crisis facing millions of unpaid family carers whom the Prime Minister always forgets, and what is his message to the low-paid, the young and the small business owners hit by covid who now face his unfair tax? This Prime Minister has not a clue about fairness and he just does not care.

Boris Johnson: After a long career of listening to Liberal Democrat opportunism, I do not think that I have heard anything quite so absurd. The right hon. Gentleman calls for more funding and then attacks the Government for providing the wherewithal to do exactly what he wants. We will be spending half a billion pounds supporting carers, and there will be 700,000 more training places. The plan supports adult care. It supports everybody who needs care up and down the country; it is not just care for the elderly.

Matthew Hancock: The reform of social care has been ducked for decades because successive Governments have put it in the too difficult box. I congratulate the Prime Minister on delivering on our commitments and his commitment. May I ask him to ensure that, as well as the money, we integrate properly the NHS with social care so that people can get the dignity that they deserve?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend, because he played a major part in the gestation of these policies and knows them intimately. He is completely right and has been massively encouraging to the Government over the last few weeks.
We will be bringing forward a White Paper on the integration. Of course this is going to be difficult, but it has to be done. We must have a system whereby people can work across both the health sector and the care sector in an integrated way. We have to have single budget holders and we have to ensure that, for instance, we have single electronic records in both health and social care. These are things that need to be fixed. We need to make sure that people are cared for appropriately and in the right setting, and that is why we are bringing forward the White Paper.

Florence Eshalomi: The Prime Minister will know that a number of young people are carers for their elderly relatives and family members. I was a carer for my late mother, who suffered from complex needs, including sickle cell anaemia and renal failure. Without those carers, our local government would have to pick up more issues. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the high vacancy rates in the care sector, and will he be honest and say that this social care plan announcement has no impact on addressing those rates?

Boris Johnson: No, this plan does address the problems in the care sector. In addition to the £6 billion that we have put into supporting local government with social care during the pandemic, we are putting another £0.5 billion into supporting the care workforce. I have mentioned the 700,000 training places that we are investing in. We are also trying to ensure that people who become carers—they are wonderful people; I thank the hon. Member for what she has done—get the progression and career structure that they need, and understand how valued and respected they are.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The public will welcome the certainty in my right hon. Friend’s announcement today, particularly with regard to the cap and the floor, but does he agree that it is time that we had a real and informed debate about the nature of old age, now that we are all living longer? The longer that we can live independently, the better it is for everyone’s wellbeing, and we can all make lifestyle choices to encourage that. Does he agree that we need a fair debate about new models of care and housing models to encourage exactly that discussion?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. One of the things that we are bringing in today is the housing and innovation fund, to ensure that we care for people in the right settings. She is completely right that there is no point in having residential care when a domiciliary option would be better, more effective and perhaps less expensive. That is exactly the right approach. The patterns of care and way we do things will change and improve—very rapidly, I believe.

Sammy Wilson: Prime Minister, most people recognise that if we want more services, we have to pay more. But if we are going to pay, it should at least be fair. Despite your claim that this is a progressive  tax, it is not. It is a flat-rate tax, the benefit of which will go mostly to better-off people. Those who are less well off will therefore be subsidising those who are better off. At a time when we are trying to create more jobs, young people and employers are going to feel the impact. Could I ask you—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say that the right hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and knows that I am not responsible—I certainly do not want to be responsible for this—so could he not use “you”? I call the Prime Minister to respond.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Prime Minister—

Lindsay Hoyle: Sammy, sit down; come on, son.

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman is a formidable campaigner for his constituents, but I believe that these measures do serve them. This plan is progressive; the burden falls most heavily on those who can most afford to pay. It will, above all, help to deal with the current waiting lists in Northern Ireland, which are excessive and need to come down.

Dr Caroline Johnson: The NHS has been outstanding during the pandemic. However, as the Prime Minister has said, there is now a large waiting list of people needing treatment. As a hospital doctor, I am delighted to hear about the increased investment in the national health service that we are getting today, but as well as money we will need medical and nursing staff hours to reduce the waiting list. What are the Government doing to increase the numbers of those medical and nursing staff?

Boris Johnson: We are massively recruiting NHS staff. I think I am right in saying that, as I stand here today, there are 11,600 more nurses in the NHS than there were this time last year, and we will go on to deliver on our manifesto commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses.

Sarah Owen: Having been a care worker, I know that it is a hard and skilled job that deserves decent pay and recognition, not a Tory tax hike. Does the Prime Minister really believe that his tax hike, which will fall on the shoulders of care workers, is any way to reward the heroes who have got us over the last 18 months?

Boris Johnson: Yes, because the burdens fall overwhelmingly on those who can best afford to pay, and the benefit for care workers is not only the increase in the living wage, but the colossal investment that we are making in care. That is something that will benefit not just care workers, but their charges: their patients, and the families who desperately need care up and down the country.

Conor Burns: A decade on from Dilnot and with the demographic challenges becoming more intense, my right hon. Friend is to be commended as the first occupant of Downing Street to grapple with this immense challenge. Some of the most distressing cases that we encounter as constituency MPs are families who are caught in that tension between those who are in hospital ready for discharge and the  local authorities. We see distressed and anxious families—confused, bewildered and vulnerable people. The greatest reform that we can make to the system is to put those who need the care at the very centre of our reforms.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend deeply; in that intervention, he has summed up the heart of the issue that I was trying to explain in my statement. It is the anxiety of millions of families up and down the country who face this uncertainty—about the finance, but also the proper setting for their relatives—that we are addressing today.

Jack Dromey: The backbone of the social care system is an army of underpaid and hard-working home carers and carers. How does the Prime Minister begin to justify to them a tax rise that not only breaks a promise, but hits them hard in their pockets?

Boris Johnson: Because we are investing massively in the sector. We are putting half a billion pounds into supporting care workers and investing in 700,000 training places. We are lifting the living wage by record amounts. Above all, we are valuing care workers and showing the respect to them and their careers that I do not believe has been properly shown before, by any Government.

Robert Halfon: I welcome that paying for this proposal is going to fall predominantly on the well off and those with the broadest shoulders. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that those who are earning less than £9,500 a year will not have to pay for the proposal, but what other mitigating factors can he put in place to help those on lower incomes to pay for it? Once the financial conditions allow, will he look at continuing to raise the living wage and at cutting taxes for lower earners?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is right consistently to campaign in the way in which he does for low earners. We are increasing the threshold for which people can be liable for paying anything at all from £14,000 to £20,000, which is a benefit that has not really come out properly in the conversation. People need to understand that we are lifting the minimum assets for which people can be liable from £14,000 to £20,000; that helps people on low incomes. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are also increasing the living wage. I am pleased to see that one of the effects of the current rebound in the economy, which I know he will be studying, is that wages are now starting to rise again—in exactly the way that some of us who campaigned for Brexit wanted to see.

Clive Efford: When I was first elected to this place in 1997, one of the first people who came to see me in my surgery was the wife of a man who had been waiting two years for open heart surgery, and we are back there again with the waiting lists. There was no righteous indignation from the Tories when the list reached 2 million before the pandemic hit. Will the Prime Minister commit today to hitting the 18-week target for waiting lists, and to clearing the backlog by the end of this Parliament?

Boris Johnson: I think what the Labour party needs to do is come up with any type of plan at all. Every day in this country, plan beats no plan. We are  putting record investment into the NHS. We have a plan to clear the backlogs—to reduce the backlogs as fast as we possibly can with this levy. What would Labour Members do? Answer comes there none: they have no plan.

Neil O'Brien: For years, people have come to my surgery with horror stories about the difficulties of accessing care and the frankly squalid conditions that their loved ones have to be in in residential care. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that, as well as protecting the things people have worked hard for all their lives, we will also protect people from having to put their loved ones into conditions that not one person in this House would ever want for their loved ones?

Boris Johnson: Yes, because in addition to the caps and the floors that we are introducing to protect people from catastrophic costs, we are also introducing a fair cost of care.

Gavin Newlands: Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that there were really no good arguments for using national insurance to raise these moneys, and having been briefed on the Government’s plans, care leaders are extremely disappointed, furious and depressed at the Government’s meagre plans on social care. But the question is: why is it necessary at all? This will raise about £12 billion a year, but the Prime Minister’s Brexit bonus of £350 million a week would aggregate to £18 billion a year. So where is this money, or did it never exist?

Boris Johnson: I think the whole country understands that we have been through a pandemic that obliged the Treasury to spend £407 billion on protecting people, jobs and livelihoods by furlough and other measures across Scotland. That was the right thing to do. I think people also understand that it is the reasonable and responsible thing to do now to put the NHS back on its feet with the funding it needs, and to sort out social care at the same time. That is what we are doing.

Jeremy Wright: Is not the starting point in this discussion that greater demand for social care is bound to require greater money to pay for it, and anyone who does not like these proposals needs to explain what the alternative is, which is unlikely to be clear, simple and popular? Is it not the case that, in order to create an insurance market to give people even greater reassurance about their future care costs, we need to put a cap on and that is why the cap is most welcome? Will the Prime Minister do all he can to make sure that that insurance market is stimulated? Finally, will he confirm that that cap applies to those who have care needs regardless of their age?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is right on the last point—that the cap applies regardless of age. He is completely right in what he says about the logical necessity for the cap if we are to have any hope of the private sector coming in with the financial instruments that will help people to protect themselves against the cost up to the limit. That is the virtue of what we are setting out today. And what do we hear from the Labour party? Deafening silence.

Debbie Abrahams: People living with dementia and their families have been particularly affected by the social care crisis. They represent 40% of care home residents and they pay a dementia premium of 15%. On average, they spend £30,000 a year on their care. Dementia is an outcome of different diseases, which are increasing; we are going to see more and more people living with dementia. Therefore, can I ask the Prime Minister whether he will also fulfil his commitment in the general election manifesto for a dementia research moonshot? We know that we can, in the same way that we have developed a vaccination programme, develop cures and treatments for dementia.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member is right to focus on the issue in the way that she does. It is a very cruel lottery that one in seven face these catastrophic costs as a result of dementia, while those who have other conditions are funded in full by the NHS. I can certainly confirm that the moonshot programme that was begun by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Health—one of his many moonshots—continues.

Angela Richardson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this funding injection will go directly into frontline NHS services, not middle management, and that patients will be able to see the tangible benefits from it?

Boris Johnson: Yes. Not only will it go to frontline services and to beating waiting lists, but we will make sure that this money—this massive, unprecedented investment—is accompanied by the reform, change and productivity gain that the NHS needs to see.

Nadia Whittome: My former colleagues where I used to work as a care worker sacrificed so much during the pandemic and now, under the Prime Minister’s plans, their pockets will be raided with a tax that will hit hardest those who are older, young and less well-off. Does he agree that it is now time for a national care service and a wealth tax to fund it?

Boris Johnson: The funding that we need on the scale that we need simply could not be raised in the way that the hon. Member describes or in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has vaguely indicated today; I do not think I heard a clear description of what he actually intends to do. But of course we want to make sure that people in the caring profession get the support and the investment that they need. That is why we are putting money into their training and into supporting carers, but also lifting their wages with the biggest ever increase in the national living wage. We will continue to support that.

Chris Clarkson: I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on local government, in thanking my right hon. Friend for making the tough choices that he has today, rather than kicking the can down the road, as the Labour party did for 13 years when it had the opportunity to do something. As welcome as this injection of cash is, can I ask for an assurance that it is going to be met with the same rigorous reform that is necessary to make the system viable for years to come?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does for local government. Of course we will make sure that we bring forward the White Paper, which will show how we intend to join up healthcare and local government in a way that they have not been since the foundation of the NHS more than 70 years ago.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Prime Minister is behaving like Father Christmas; he does not know what he has not delivered in government for the last 11 years. In this House last night, we had cross-party consensus on covering the costs of medicinal cannabis. So while Father Christmas is at the Dispatch Box, can he deliver on a Government promise to immediately set up a fund to pay for prescriptions for medical cannabis for children with intractable epilepsy?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady. The prescriptions that she asks for are actually already provided for on the basis of clinical advice.

Damian Green: There has been much debate about how the money is being raised, but of more concern is how the money is going to be spent. My fear is that, once you start spending on perfectly proper things like the NHS backlog, there will never come a point where there is enough money in the new fund to transfer to social care, which needs it now. You cannot spend the same pound twice. So can my right hon. Friend guarantee that the social care sector will itself see a significant uplift in its support in the immediate future?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend has done great work on this subject and I am indebted to him for some of the advice that he has given to me personally about how to proceed in this. He is right in what he says. The issue is making sure that the funding goes where it is needed and that it is specifically ring-fenced. The investments in social care will be protected by the Government and by the Treasury.

Ben Bradshaw: There are better ways of doing this than to take money from the less well off in work and the young to give to better off pensioners. Can I commend to the Prime Minister and my own Front Benchers the work of the Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees in their joint report of 2018, agreed unanimously by all Members of all parties in this House, which would deliver a system that is sustainable and equitable, address poor quality and low pay, and allow the proper integration of health and social care—none of which, from what I have heard today, his proposals would deliver?

Boris Johnson: Time and again, Labour Members have stood up and said that there is a better way to do this, without offering a single idea. A plan beats no plan.

David Jones: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the sums passed to Wales under his proposals will not only be ring-fenced for health and social care, but that the Welsh Government will be required to apply the same £86,000 cap as will be applied in England? It would be grossly unfair if care users in one part of the country were to be worse off than those in another.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Members across the House will know that the lower limit in Scotland is £12,500 at the moment. Lifting that to £20,000, as we are now, is something that people in Scotland may want to address. I certainly think that the cap of £86,000 is something that people in Wales will want to see, too. There is a strong benefit to the whole of the UK proceeding as one.

Lisa Cameron: As chair of the all-party parliamentary health group, I have been hearing concerns from older adults across the United Kingdom who are in social care or in the community and have experienced loneliness, anxiety, isolation from loved ones, illness, bereavement and loss. The British Journal of Psychiatry has today documented a significant rise in depression in this group. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that older adults in social care and the community have access to adequate mental health services and that those services are fully funded?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is completely right to draw attention to the suffering of people throughout the pandemic, particularly in care homes, including the mental stress they have suffered as a result of not being able to see or hold loved ones in the normal way. It has been one of the most appalling features of this pandemic, and we are certainly investing record sums in mental health to deal with that issue and many others.

Alun Cairns: Does the Prime Minister share my disbelief at the Leader of the Opposition’s response to his statement, considering that waiting times for treatment and discharge for my constituents in Wales are much longer than they are in England? Can he confirm that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will be net gainers out of the social care levy? Will he further guarantee that the additional sums available will be spent on health and social care in the nations?

Boris Johnson: I can certainly confirm that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be getting an increment. There will be a Union dividend in the way that I described, but clearly it is up to those parts of the country to ensure that that money is spent on the people’s priorities, and I believe that the people’s priorities are health and social care.

Karin Smyth: As well as the 30,000 beds that the Prime Minister talked about, we know there has been a 36% increase in people dying at home through the pandemic in circumstances that we know not much about. The mental, physical and financial torture and cost born by families is unknown and will shock many of us when we hear from our constituents. He may be flying a kite today, but I do think he is breaching a dam, and that is something that we all need to grasp. Targeted help is not a long-term solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) highlights what that solution could be, but there is some certainty offered today. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether he is going to bring forward a White Paper? Will he bring forward different forms of legislation? How are we going to understand the impact?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much. We are setting out the plan today on the caps and floors and how to deal with social care. We are setting out the plan on nurses’ pay and dealing with the backlogs. What we will also be doing is setting out the finer detail of the integration between health and social care in the ways that I have described: everybody should have electronic records for both health and social care; there should be movement between the two services; community nurses and adult social carers should not be doing these radically different professions with different pay spines—there should be an integration; people should be having care in the appropriate setting; and there should be a single budget holder. Those are some of the things that we will be discussing in the White Paper.

Shaun Bailey: Additional investment is welcome, but that has to come with assurance. My constituents in Tipton, because of the Labour party, are getting turfed out of their care home, despite a £2 million underspend by Sandwell Council on adult social care. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents in Tipton that their campaign to save Walker Grange care home is not in vain? Will he ensure that assurance comes with the investment to stop the Labour party turfing out some of the most vulnerable people in my community?

Boris Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker, and I think my hon. Friend speaks to the profound indifference of the Labour party to this issue for decades. That is why we are taking the decisive action that we are to address the problems in the whole social care system, to support care homes and to support those who must face the cost of social care.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Prime Minister agree that any new money must go alongside reform of our NHS? Does he agree that, as we have a system where most people’s entry into the health system is through a GP, it surely cannot be right that in many of the most deprived communities in our country, people cannot get a GP for love nor money? There must be something wrong in many parts of our country that in this day and age, people cannot get a GP and cannot even get a dentist. When can we do something to change that?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in what he says, in the sense that we are doing 50 million more GP appointments. That is part of our manifesto pledge. What we are also going to do as part of these reforms—I do not think anyone wants to see money just funnelled into the NHS without reform—is look at GP contracts to make sure that GPs see the right patients at the right time.

Richard Graham: If there was an easy solution to the problem of social care, it would have happened years, if not decades ago. I believe that everybody in this House, but particularly those from parties offering no alternatives, should welcome how the Prime Minister is tackling health and social care together with a hypothecated tax, which means that this health and social care levy is ring-fenced for all our constituents’ benefit. On the issue of intergenerational fairness, my right hon. Friend said that the recently retired would contribute and the lowest earning would  not contribute, so will he encourage the Health Secretary to lay out the details of the tapers as soon as possible, so that everyone can see that this is a progressive levy?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will certainly be laying that out. What everybody in the country understands is that there is no intergenerational issue here, because in the end all families are affected by this. Everybody has older relatives whom we love, and the cost of whose care makes us anxious. Everybody understands that families across the country are liable for this and we must take steps to fix it, and that is what we are doing.

Catherine West: Confidence in job creation is crucial right now in our economy. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the number of jobs where employers will look at the extra national insurance contributions and say, “No, I do not think I will take on those extra staff”?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady should remember that 40% of companies will not be affected at all by this. I am sure she also knows that the labour market is so buoyant that not only are there huge numbers of vacancies, but wages are rising, and that is a good thing.

Alicia Kearns: During the pandemic, the Government stepped in to save lives and jobs. In Rutland and Melton, 47% of jobs would have been lost without those efforts. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be wrong to meet the cost with higher borrowing and debt, which would be carried by our children? Will he commit to look at those councils that are worse funded, specifically Leicestershire and Rutland, which need real help with social care above and beyond a generic formula across the country?

Boris Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for what she says about Rutland and Melton, and we will certainly make sure the councils get the funding they need. She has hit on the fundamental point: borrowing more is no answer. We are borrowing a lot, and in the end borrowing is just future tax rises for younger people or even people unborn. That is not what this Government are going to do.

Richard Burgon: Health and social care do need massive investment, especially after Tory austerity has so undermined our national health service over the past 11 years. A 10% tax on the wealth of those with over £100 million would raise £69 billion. Surely a wealth tax is how we should be funding these vital services. Is the truth not that despite the rhetoric and the promises, the Tories do not have the guts to take on the super-rich who fund their party, and that is why they will not back a wealth tax?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. At least he has the guts, unlike the leader of his party, to say that he would tax people in this country to the tune of £12 billion or £13 billion a year to pay for this. This is a wealth tax on that scale. We believe that this is the right way. What we have not heard from those on the Labour Front Bench is any credible alternative.

Andrew Bowie: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of this announcement today, the Scottish national health service will receive billions of extra pounds in funding? Does he share my astonishment—and, I am sure, the astonishment of the people of Scotland—at the remarkable reaction of the SNP today? It seems that because the SNP has not asked for it, it does not want Scotland’s NHS to get this extra funding.

Boris Johnson: That was brilliantly and succinctly put. Does the SNP want the money or not? Do the people of Scotland want investment in their healthcare and social care or not? There is more money coming for Scotland; let us hope that the SNP spends it wisely.

Munira Wilson: A little over two years ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised the nation an oven-ready deal on social care, yet the announcement of a tax on jobs only promises a plan later this year. Crucially, the detail in the statement says that only people starting care after October 2023 will be helped with these catastrophic costs. What does the Prime Minister say to the 1.5 million people missing out on care and to the millions of hard-working families facing crippling costs between now and September 2023 but paying for it from April next year?

Boris Johnson: What I say to the hon. Member is that, frankly, she should take that up with the former leaders of the Labour party, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and all the former Ministers responsible who did absolutely nothing to fix the problem when they were in office. It is this Government dealing with it now.

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister was absolutely right to focus on the importance of the social care workforce. Unfortunately, the Government’s own estimate is that due to our compulsory vaccination measures, 40,000 people in that workforce will leave the sector by November. Are there urgent measures in his plan that the Government will take to replace those missing care workers so that we can deliver the high-quality care that I think everyone in the House wants to see?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about compulsory vaccination. I believe it is the right thing, and, in the ways that I have described, we are making sure that we encourage more people to join the social care workforce, with the £500 million of investment and the training places. We must also understand that many of those social care workers are leaving to join the NHS, where vaccination is not currently compulsory. Almost 10% of NHS frontline workers are not vaccinated. That is something on which we need to reflect, and that is why we are having a consultation on the way forward for the NHS. I do not think it is right that almost one in 10 frontline NHS workers should be unvaccinated against covid.

Helen Hayes: It is telling that, in the Prime Minister’s statement, there was not a single word of tribute to our extraordinary social care workforce or any mention of the pay increase that they so desperately need. Many of those social care  workers are on low pay and will face a £1,000 cut in their income as a consequence of the Prime Minister’s cut to universal credit, on top of the national insurance increase they face. What has the Prime Minister got to say to our dedicated social care workforce who spend their time caring for our precious loved ones every single day?

Boris Johnson: Let me say again what I have said repeatedly: the social care workforce of this country have done an amazing job and continue to do so. They did an amazing job throughout the pandemic as well as before it and beyond. I met more of them today. What they are getting from this package of measures is not only investment in their careers and progression but the long-term structure and respect that they need as a profession and the prospect of integration between what they do and what the NHS provides. That is a massive prize.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping an issue that his predecessors have been ducking for decades. Does he agree that what has been announced restores some equity to a system that relies on pooling our risk and that, in particular, people who have been excluded with dementia, neurodegenerative disease, Parkinson’s disease and the general frailty of old age, and their relatives, can look forward with some confidence to the system that has been there for others also applying to them?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend knows exactly what he is talking about, because he is a former GP who has seen these issues at the frontline. With this measure, we are not only investing in care and in the NHS but bringing the magic of averages to the rescue of millions.

Clive Betts: Before the pandemic, the Conservative-led Local Government Association said that there was a gap in social care funding and local authority funding of about £5 billion. It has got worse since. Will the Prime Minister therefore state clearly, of the £36 billion to be raised through this addition to national insurance contributions in the next three years, how much will go to local authorities to fund social care? When, in 2023, he brings in the cap and floor system, that will mean less money coming in from people’s own funding, so what will the net addition be for local authorities from the increase in national insurance payments and the reduction in payments from the cap and floor system?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member makes an exceptionally important point. In addition to the £6 billion that we put into supporting local government throughout the pandemic, we are putting more in precisely to support social care. That will ramp up over time as the system kicks in. The distribution will be set out in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Peter Bone: Nobody in this House, and I doubt anyone in the country, will be surprised that the Prime Minister has the guts to take on reforming social care when none of his predecessors  did. I was amazed that in the statement he pointed out that roughly one in three hospital beds are occupied by people who could be better treated and cared for elsewhere. It seems to me from my surgeries that the problem is largely due to local government and the health service not working together. When can we see some improvement in that?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right, and I am sure he speaks for Members across the House who have experienced this problem in their surgeries for years. There is a mismatch between health and social care and there is not a proper system for deciding where people should be treated for their own benefit, and the result is that we get these huge pressures of delayed discharge that make it more difficult to deal with the elective surgery that people need—particularly now. That is why we must do both things at once, and that is why we are doing what we are doing.

Meg Hillier: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) have hit the nail on the head: there is no plan for social care. What the Prime Minister has listed is money to go into the NHS. Will he tell us now when the money will go to local authorities so that it can go to those domiciliary and residential social care providers who actually need it?

Boris Johnson: It is all in the plan. The overwhelming bulk of the funding begins with support for frontline NHS electives, for nurses’ pay and for vaccines; then, as the social care plan ramps up, the ratio changes. It will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Kevin Hollinrake: May I quote from a recent report from a joint inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on the future funding of social care, on which I sat together with 12 Opposition Members? It says:
“We therefore recommend that an earmarked contribution, described as a ‘Social Care Premium’, should be introduced, to which individuals and employers should contribute. This can either be as an addition to National Insurance, or through a separate mechanism”.
Does that not show that there is cross-party support for such a proposal and that the Opposition’s objections are simply political opportunism?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that elegant but telling point about the cross-party support that there should be. We are trying to create the conditions by decisive Government action for exactly the kind of insurance systems that I know he wants to see.

Rupa Huq: It has been a long time coming, but this announcement is too little, too late for the 34,000 people who have died of  covid with dementia. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he will honour his manifesto pledge to double research spending into this cruel disease that took my mum—it was isolating before covid—or is this just another one going the same way as the money for the NHS promised on the side of the bus?

Boris Johnson: I am very sorry to hear about the suffering of the hon. Member’s mother. Dementia is a very cruel affliction, and it is because of the cruelty of that lottery about who gets it and who does not that we are putting in the measures that we are. But we are also funding extra research into dementia, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is determined to ensure that we continue with the moonshot that I was referring to earlier.

Huw Merriman: May I ask the Prime Minister why he decided to reject other forms of insurance as a model? The Germans brought in an insurance model back in the 1980s, facing the same problems that we had, and it relies on the private insurance sector. The noble Lord Lilley from the other place has brought forward a Bill that would see the Government set up a state insurer. Those retired householders would then pay a premium, which would be fixed as a charge, and then that charge would only be paid upon the death of that individual. Do not those models do a little more to intergenerational fairness?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful question. We looked at all those models of course, Mr Speaker, as you can imagine. I think that the problem is that we need to go for an insurance system that works and has a genuine chance of being set up, and the only way of encouraging the financial services industry to come in and offer products, whether they are insurance or annuities or whatever, is to take away that risk of catastrophic cost. That is a very substantial risk for too many people and it means that the insurance market has not been able to develop. We believe that this is the best way forward for the country.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) referred to comments by IFS director Paul Johnson earlier, but Paul Johnson has also said he is
“bemused as to why such a bad tax policy instrument has to be used”,
and pointed out that the under-50s would pay two thirds of the costs of social care if they paid through NI. Prime Minister, that means young people and the lowest-paid bearing the brunt. Many of these are also working with universal credit—people in Scotland paying that and elsewhere. Does he think it is fair to progress this while also cutting the £20 a week from hard-pressed families on universal credit?

Boris Johnson: No, because obviously older people continue to pay the levy and the richest 14% pay half the cost of this transformation, and that is entirely the right thing to do.

Christopher Chope: If there had not been a pandemic, how would we have funded this reform of social care without having to raise taxes?

Boris Johnson: The pandemic and the cost of the pandemic have impacted both our health and our social care systems. As I have tried to explain to the House today, they are intimately related. The best way to put them on a sound footing—both of them on a sound footing—for the future is to treat them together and to put in the levy in the way that we are.

Alex Cunningham: We all know that the Prime Minister’s promises are a wee bit dodgy. Today, he promised that his extra taxes will go to the frontline, so by how much will he increase the pay for people in the social care profession or is it just going to be another round of applause?

Boris Johnson: People in the social care profession, overwhelmingly, are not paid by the Government as the hon. Member knows, but they are the beneficiaries of the living wage, which the Government have increased by record amounts. What we are doing is investing in their training, investing in their careers and making sure that they get the respect and the progression that they need.

Mel Stride: The devil, as ever, will be in the detail. However, may I initially broadly welcome these proposals, particularly compared with what we were expecting, which was a rise across national insurance as it stands at the moment? This is a much broader-based levy: it includes those who have retired and those who are receiving dividends. It seems to me that that has a very welcome consequence; the broadest shoulders will pay the most. But can my right hon. Friend also address one of the criticisms of what we feared might have been brought forward today, which was the impact on the young in particular and this issue of intergenerational fairness, and how he feels that this approach is going to be useful in that respect?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his support, because it is extremely important, and I think he is completely right. We are trying to make sure that those who can pay the most do pay the most. We are trying to make sure that we address the issue of intergenerational fairness. But there is a bigger point, which I have made repeatedly. This is not something that simply affects one generation, the elderly. There are huge numbers of younger people in care who will benefit from what we are doing and every person in this country has relatives who face the problems that we are trying now to allay or to defeat.

Paul Blomfield: The Prime Minister today was supposed to be announcing a social care plan, but there was no vision, no detail and no real sense of understanding the complex web of issues that create the social care crisis. In particular, he made no mention of the millions of unpaid carers, whose commitment to their loved ones props up the failing system. So will he now say very specifically what is in his plan to identify and support unpaid carers, and particularly young carers, and what resources will he commit to them?

Boris Johnson: I thank unpaid carers for everything that they do, and the hon. Member is quite right to point out the huge contribution that they make. What  unpaid carers have now is the certainty that if they need to pay for the cost of care in some way or other, there will be a limit and they will not have to continue with their unpaid exertions, their care and love forever, because the Government are coming in to help them.

Jonathan Gullis: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s investment into the NHS, particularly into the beds, which have obviously clogged up. We see this in Stoke-on-Trent, where the Royal Stoke University Hospital was built under the last Labour Government, with a disastrous PFI debt that steals £20 million a year from the frontline. It also has 200 fewer beds than the previous hospital. So can my right hon. Friend ensure that previously forgotten areas such as Stoke-on-Trent will get their fair share of funding?

Boris Johnson: With the PFI contracts and the endless borrowing that Labour instituted, hospitals up and down the country are paying the price for the approach advocated by the last Labour Government—the completely financially reckless and incompetent approach. That is the opposite of what this Government are doing. We are taking the fiscally responsible, reasonable and right approach to fixing this problem.

Alison McGovern: The Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, though it is not in the printed copy of his speech, that the NHS backlog that we face will get worse before it gets better. How much worse?

Boris Johnson: It would be a great thing if the Labour party would support what we are doing. With the package we have brought forward, we will be able to fix that backlog even faster. If the hon. Member or the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the leader of the Labour party—[Interruption.] By the way, we did not hear from him whether he is going to vote for these proposals or not: as usual, a great vacuum at the heart of the Labour party. Does he actually support these proposals—yes or no? That is what I would like to know.

Stephen Crabb: I think the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary deserve enormous credit for coming together and working out a plan for this incredibly difficult problem, and I think people outside this place will recognise that. But does the Prime Minister agree with me that one of the most difficult parts of this challenge is ensuring that we bring out the very best now in our NHS—that we bear down on unnecessary costs and increase quality output from the NHS? Does he agree that that is the key to freeing up that extra resource to get to the frontline of social care?

Boris Johnson: Yes, we cannot simply continue to funnel huge sums into the NHS without getting the productivity gains that I know that everybody wants to see around the country. Of course, we want to value our frontline NHS workers. That is why we have put up the wages of nurses. It is why we are increasing salaries and recruiting many more. But we must see the gains in efficiency that go with the investment we are making. We are investing record sums, and we also need to see improvements in the NHS service as well.

Marion Fellows: Cabinet Ministers, Tory Back Benchers and Lords, and businesses large and small are all opposed to this proposal. There is universal criticism of how it will affect young people and those who are less well-off who are working, and, to top it all, the Prime Minister cannot resist interfering in the devolved settlement, even though Scotland voted for a majority of independence supporting MSPs. How long—how long—does this Prime Minister think he can carry on like this before he follows in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and loses his majority due to a botched plan?

Boris Johnson: I leave it to the hon. Lady to speculate on that time, but it is very bizarre that yet again the Scottish nationalists—I think she is a Scottish nationalist—seem to be rejecting the Union dividend that this produces. I hope, and the people of Scotland deserve, that this money is spent on health and social care in Scotland; let us hope it is so spent.

Joy Morrissey: Many in this House have discussed the burden placed on councils, and I echo the concern that this money must be ring-fenced for the local authorities, who take the lion’s share of the burden for adult social care. Can the Government give greater assurances as to how the funding streams will be safeguarded and directed towards local authorities?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is spot on, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will set out later how we will ensure local councils get the support that they need.

Rachael Maskell: The Prime Minister failed to say a word about the broken private care market that fleeces the frail and suppresses the wages of the workers. Why has he failed to lay out plans to end this broken market and introduce a public national care system?

Boris Johnson: I know that the Labour party wants to nationalise everything, which would be typically insane since the vast majority of care is provided by the private sector. What we are doing is lifting people’s wages with the national living wage, investing in training and putting half a billion pounds into progression of the caring workforce, and we will also make sure that local councils get the funding they need to support a fair cost of care.

Mike Wood: When people cannot get an appointment with their GP they often turn to hospital A&E departments, or miss out on early intervention which places greater pressure on our health system further down the line. As part of his plan for the NHS to recover, will the Prime Minister make sure that everybody can get face-to-face appointments with their GP without further delay?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right and speaks for colleagues across the House: we need to reform the system so that GPs see the right people at the right time and in the right numbers.

Alison Thewliss: Mike Cherry of the Federation of Small Businesses has said that  these plans unquestionably mean fewer jobs and economic damage and that they are “devastating” for businesses trying to
“get back on their feet”.
Why is the Prime Minister intent on damaging the very fragile recovery we have had for the past year?

Boris Johnson: I disagree vehemently with what the hon. Lady says because the economy is coming back much more strongly than many predicted, including the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is a good thing. If we had followed the advice from the Labour party we would still be in lockdown, but we are seeing growth returning and jobs being created, and I do not believe anything in this plan will do anything to dent that confidence. On the contrary, businesses want to know that their workforce have the security of a good health and social care plan to back them up, and that is what this Government are providing.

Richard Drax: As Conservatives, broken pledges and tax rises should concern us. Our finances are in a perilous state; surely a radical review of the NHS is needed if this money is not going to disappear into another black hole. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative way to raise revenue is to lower taxes, not raise them?

Boris Johnson: I do agree with that general proposition, but in the current circumstances, after 18 months in which it has been necessary for the Government to perform the most enormous fiscal exertions to put their arms around the country at a very difficult and dangerous time, it is right that we take these steps to put the NHS back on a sustainable footing and to deal with the problems of social care which make long-term solutions for the NHS—the very reform that my hon. Friend and I want to see—so difficult to achieve.

Andrew Gwynne: Words I never thought I would say: the Prime Minister is right, we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. But we cannot fix social care without fixing local government, and of course in the lifetime of this Government £15 billion has been taken out of council budgets, disproportionately hitting some of the least affluent parts of England and impacting on social care outcomes. Councils need assurances now that funding will follow and clarity on when they will get it and how much it will be; does he understand that?

Boris Johnson: Actually in the last few years we have seen record increases in local council spending power, and we have continued to support councils throughout the pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be setting out how we propose to support local government going forward with the fair cost of care, but in the meantime may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unprecedented support for these measures?

David Morris: I can probably say that in the last 18 months during lockdown I have seen more of the NHS than most people—I have had a neck operation, my baby was born, my back exploded, for want of a better word, and   I was paralysed—and I would like to go on record and thank the Royal Lancaster Infirmary for getting me walking again and looking after me and my family.
I say the following in a collegiate sense to everybody. What the Prime Minister has done here is what Andy Burnham wanted to do 10 years ago but never brought it through when he was the last Labour Health Secretary and the shadow Secretary. What the Prime Minister is doing is brave, but I have been saying for years when knocking on doors in my constituency, “Put an extra penny on taxation for the NHS,” and everyone has agreed with me. So, whatever these tax rises are going to be, so be it: we have to protect the NHS—it is our moral duty.

Boris Johnson: It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend looking so well, and I echo his thanks to our healthcare professionals for everything they do. I believe it is the fixed view of the British people that after a very difficult time it is fiscally right and responsible to protect frontline healthcare and support the NHS but also at the same time to fix the underlying problems, of which social care is just one.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Prime Minister for introducing this long overdue measure to address the NHS and social care. Across the United Kingdom, and in my constituency of Strangford, small and medium-sized businesses are critically important in providing jobs and boosting the economy. Can the Prime Minister assure this House that across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland SMEs will not shoulder the burden, as they can little afford it?

Boris Johnson: I am a fervent admirer of the businesses of Northern Ireland and their ingenuity and ability to innovate, which I have seen many times at first hand. I know they are capable of a very dynamic recovery, and indeed believe that is going on right now. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to keep bringing forward those business-friendly, supply-side measures which will drive a very strong economic recovery.

Liam Fox: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to improve and raise NHS capacity. For decades bed occupancy rates in the NHS have been kept too high in the name of efficiency but at the expense of resilience. When it comes to reforming long-term care we need a clear set of principles to be followed: we need to encourage and make it worthwhile for people to save for a rainy day; we need to support families to look after their loved ones; and we must allow enough money to pass down the generations to make it worthwhile to save in the first place. Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that his proposed reforms will meet these tests?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his support; he knows a great deal about this subject from many points of view. It is certainly right to bring in the measures that will help to create a private sector market for support in the way I have described, but also more fundamentally from our point of view—my right hon. Friend’s and my point of view—these are measures that support thrift, that support people who save, and that support people who do the right thing:  who pay off their mortgage and work hard all their lives to build up something for their families and descendants. So I think these measures are profoundly in the interests of the people of this country.

Stephen Flynn: Let us be clear: Scottish taxpayers are being asked to bail out England’s failing social care system from a mess created by the UK Government. I ask the Prime Minister, in all good sincerity: does he believe that his new poll tax will help or hinder the cause of Scottish independence?

Boris Johnson: Good luck with that one. That is all I can say to the hon. Gentleman. What the people of Scotland and the whole of the UK are getting is £2.2 billion more across the whole of the devolved Administrations and a £300 million Union dividend. If they do not want to spend it on health and social care, or if they do not want to spend it at all—if he is handing the money back—then let us hear it from the Scottish nationalist party. Do they want it or do they not?

Marcus Fysh: Will my right hon. Friend work with me to examine ways that I can see of getting the finance, technology and political sectors together to do this in a way that can be less of a burden on the taxpayer?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend. I have been reading some of his brilliant contributions on WhatsApp groups about this issue, and I share his idealism about the ways in which the private sector—the financial services industry—can take advantage of what we are doing to help ordinary people up and down the country to protect themselves in exactly the way that he describes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would very much welcome his help as we work towards the White Paper.

Richard Thomson: I thank the Prime Minister for at least providing clarity that any reference to a “Union dividend” simply refers to devolved nations getting back the taxes that they pay and having the balance filled up with UK borrowing. In his belated attempts to tackle England’s social care crisis, with hedge fund owners to the left of him and millionaire property owners to the right, can the Prime Minister explain what it was that persuaded him to embed the advantages of inherited wealth and privilege, and instead shift the burden for paying for this policy on to the lowest earning and the youngest in society—those with the least assets?

Boris Johnson: I do not think there is anything much inherited on the left, the right or the middle of this particular trio. Again, I find it extraordinary that the Scottish nationalist party would rather not have the Union dividend that this programme produces. The people of Scotland need to look at what is now being offered in terms of raising the thresholds for protection and helping people across the UK, and I hope that we can all move forward together.

Stephen Hammond: I commend my right hon. Friend for keeping a promise that he made on the first day of his premiership and for his frankness about the difficulties of funding the challenges.  There will be millions of hard-working families today looking at his proposals for the cap and floor and welcoming them. Can he confirm that the cap will cover all types of care—residential and domiciliary—and that, given that there is likely to be a need for more care workers, there will be up to £500 million as a training fund within the levy?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this issue and the pressures that the sector faces. I can tell him that, yes, of course it covers both residential and domiciliary, and yes, there is a £500 million fund to help the caring profession, and we will provide 700,000 training places as a direct result of what we are doing today.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Following the statement just made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a sustainable plan for the NHS and social care, I should like to make a short business statement regarding business for tomorrow and the rest of the week. The business will now be:
Wednesday 8 September—Consideration of a Ways and Means resolution on health and social care levy.
Thursday 9 September—Motion relating to the second report of Session 2021-22 from the Committee on Standards, followed by remaining stages of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, followed by a general debate on the legacy of Jo Cox. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 September—Private Members’ Bills.
As usual, I will make a business statement on Thursday.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the statement.
This morning, the Cabinet was bounced into the Prime Minister’s so-called social care plan, and now the Leader of the House is trying to bounce Parliament into accepting it in a vote tomorrow. This is no way to run a Government. It is no way to run a country. This Tory tax rise will not come in till next spring, so why the rush? Does he know that he will never get it past his Back Benchers and through Parliament otherwise? Is he making sure that his own MPs have as little time as possible to consult their constituents or hear from stakeholders and experts? He would not be the first Minister in his Government to forget that emails will be coming into his colleagues’ inboxes right now.
The Leader of the House recently reminded the Prime Minister of the fate of one-term President George H. W. Bush and his words on taxes, which were not heeded. Will the Leader of the House be voting against his Government tomorrow, or was that another example of more empty rhetoric?
The Government are in crisis-management mode, lurching from one disaster to the next. They are trying to cover up the fact that they do not actually have a plan; they only have a tax rise. The haste on this vote is to cover up a litany of broken promises and failures. There is nothing for carers, there is nothing to help people to stay living in their own homes, and there is nothing to help the council funding shortfall that successive Tory Governments have caused.
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street two years, one month and 14 days ago vowing to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all…with a clear plan”
that was “prepared”, but here we aren’t—this is not a clear plan, and it does not seem very prepared. This was just an attempt to fix an NHS funding gap that this Government, and successive Tory Governments before them, caused. Now that we have been waiting for more than two years, why the sudden haste? Today we see why: they just want to rush it through without proper consultation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That was a fine example of sound and fury which signifieth nothing. It is entirely routine for matters to be brought before the House in this way. Whenever a Budget comes forward, the Budget resolutions may be voted on that very evening. It has always been the case that matters relating to taxation are dealt with swiftly, because it is important to ensure that people are not able to take forestalling measures and so forth which become possible if taxation is not dealt with properly.
Tomorrow is in fact about dealing with the Standing Orders of this House, which require a Ways and Means resolution before legislation may be brought forward. The legislation will be brought forward in due course, and I will announce it in a business statement. All of this is completely routine and standard. I am afraid that the more the Labour party says that there is no plan, when a plan has been published, detailed by the Prime Minister and announced to the world, the more it shows the vacuity of the opposition—an Opposition who learn nothing and remember nothing.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the Government on the Prime Minister’s giving another statement to the House. That is two in two days, I think. He has been one of the most active Prime Ministers in Parliament.
On the business statement, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance on the amount of time for tomorrow’s debate? I welcome the early debate, but I want to ensure that there is enough time for Members to get in. Has he any view on the length of the debate?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The House may be surprised that, in the absence of call lists, it is much harder to plant questions. However, my hon. Friend’s is extraordinarily useful, because I am pleased to tell the House that the whole of tomorrow will be available for the Ways and Means resolution, subject, of course, to urgent questions at the discretion of Mr Speaker, and statements that may prove necessary.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for his short statement.
We are getting this “everything’s normal and as it should be” tone from the Leader of the House, even though he knows that nothing is normal about what he is doing tomorrow. I am sure that he is thrilled that the very thing he profoundly opposes will be debated and voted on tomorrow. I remember reading over the weekend:
“Read my lips: no new taxes.”
He is right; people did remember those words, and they will remember them again. Perhaps we will see those defiant lips move in accordance with a matter of principle for him and see him vote against these measures when they come before the House.
Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am wondering whether one day is enough for all this. We need to hear from countless Tory Members apologising to their constituents for breaking their manifesto pledge not to raise tax, VAT or national insurance. We particularly want to hear from all the red wall Tories, who are now  going to have to explain to all their new voters that they will have to swallow this regressive move and how it will impact on them. We will want to hear from Scotland, too, as we will be invited to pay twice for the Government’s social care mess for services that we have already legislated on. All I can say to the Leader of the House is that these lips were made for talking.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: One had noticed that the hon. Gentleman’s lips were made for talking. It is done a great deal and usually to the great entertainment of the House. I am delighted, flattered, thrilled by so many people reading my comments in the Sunday Express. I do a weekly wisdom for them. As my wife points out to me, being wise once a week is probably as much as can be expected of me. None the less, I provide these comments for the Sunday Express and I hope people will carry on reading that estimable newspaper and getting my wisdom on a weekly basis.
The time allowed tomorrow is sufficient and there will, of course, be legislation brought forward, as I said. Tomorrow—I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right—many Conservative MPs will want to wax lyrical on the advantages to the United Kingdom of this proposal, which will see a £300 million Union dividend and help bail out the failings of the Scottish national health system, so badly run by the nationalist Government in Edinburgh. Extra money will be going to Scotland and Scotland will receive more money than Scottish people pay in taxation—or, to be more accurate, than Scottish residents pay in taxation—so it is of benefit to Scotland. I might remind the hon. Gentleman about gift horses not being looked in the mouth.

Desmond Swayne: I have received a brace of emails asking me to be here on Thursday to vote against covid passports. Is the Leader of the House sure there is something he has not told us?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not entirely sure who my right hon. Friend receives his emails from. It may be from certain conspiracy theorists who think all sorts of things are going to be discussed in this House. I remind him of what I said about Thursday: there will be a motion relating to the second report of the Session 2021-22 from the Committee on Standards, followed by the remaining stages of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, and then a very important general debate on the legacy of Jo Cox. If my right hon. Friend wishes to be here earlier in the morning, he can, of course, hear my business statement, which will update him on any further business.

Christopher Chope: Will the Ways and Means resolution be amendable? In particular, would it be possible to amend the Ways and Means resolution to ensure that the cap on care costs comes into effect at the same time as the higher taxes, instead of 18 months later?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Ways and Means resolutions are amendable. My hon. Friend will have to have a discussion with the Table Office on what type of amendments it will accept, but, yes, the broad principle is that they are amendable.

Pensions Update

Therese Coffey: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the annual uprating of state pensions and survivors’ benefits in industrial death benefit.
Each year, as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I am required to undertake a review of certain benefit and pension rates in relation to the general level of earnings. Just as last year, this year I anticipate an unusual change in earnings due to the effects of the covid pandemic. The unprecedented but necessary covid restrictions we introduced last year protected lives, especially the most vulnerable, many of whom are pensioners, and protected the NHS, but those restrictions caused disruption to the economy, including preventing many people from working, wages falling and, sadly, many people being made redundant.
As we sought to protect lives, so we sought to protect livelihoods. To mitigate the worst impacts, we introduced a £407 billion package of support, including the furlough and self-employment schemes, to support incomes. Nevertheless, last year we saw earnings fall by one percentage point. In response, we legislated to set aside the earnings link, allowing me to award an uprating of 2.5%, as that was higher than inflation. If we had not done that, state pension would have been frozen.
Thanks to our vaccination programme, which started with the eldest and most vulnerable in our society, we have seen that as the economy and businesses have reopened and millions have moved off furlough and returned to work, the labour market has shown strong signs of recovery and earnings have risen at an unprecedented rate. We face a distorted reflection of earnings growth. The latest Office for National Statistics figures from August show an increase in average weekly earnings of 8.8%, compared to the same time last year. Confirmed figures will be published next month, but we expect growth of 8% or more for May to July 2021. The relevant period earnings are taken into account as part of my uprating review.
This year, as restrictions have lifted and we experienced an irregular statistical spike in earnings over the uprating review period, I am clear that another one year adjustment is needed. So tomorrow, I will introduce the social security (uprating of benefits) Bill. For 2022-23 only, it will ensure that basic and new state pensions increase by 2.5% or in line with inflation, which is expected to be the higher figure this year. As happened last year, it will again set aside the earnings element for 2022-23, before being restored for the remainder of this Parliament. That will ensure pensioners’ spending power is preserved and protected from higher costs of living, but also ensure that as we are having to make difficult decisions elsewhere across public spending, including freezing public sector pay, pensioners are not unfairly benefiting from a statistical anomaly. At a time when we have made tough decisions to restore the public finances which have impacted working people, such as freezing income tax personal thresholds at current levels, that would not be fair. Setting aside the earnings element is temporary and only for one year. This means we can and will apply the triple lock as usual from next year for the remainder of this Parliament, in line with our manifesto commitment.
While the earnings growth is a welcome sign of the country’s overall economic recovery given the unique and exceptional events of the past 18 months, this year’s measure is being skewed and distorted, reflecting a technical and temporary period of reverting or rebounding earnings—the differing cohorts of people who were retained or made redundant. As a result, the earnings measure is a statistical anomaly and is not a real-life basis for considering this year’s uprating of state pensions. As other commentators have said, for example the Institute for Government:
“The figure for earnings growth is distorted...the increase is artificially high because so many workers were furloughed last year”.
The Social Market Foundation also endorses my proposal, stating:
“The triple lock should be replaced with a double lock...pensions would still rise, but less quickly, reducing the fiscal burden on the working-age population”.
In addition to those receiving basic and new state pensions, this adjustment will apply to those receiving standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, and widows’ and widowers’ benefits in industrial death benefit. The Bill will not extend to other benefits that are linked to prices, which I will review under the existing legislation, as I did last year.
The Government are committed to ensuring that older people can enjoy their retirement with security, dignity and respect, and that those who have worked hard and put in for decades can be confident that the state will be there to support them when they need it. Since 2010, the full yearly basic state pension has increased by over £2,050 in cash terms. There are also 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10.
I am proud of our record on support for pensioners and of the action we took last year to ensure that pensioners’ incomes continue to increase despite falling earnings among working-age taxpayers. Our recovery is based on the principles of fairness and sustainability as we level up opportunities across the country, invest in jobs, skills and public services while repairing the public finances. This is the fair and reasonable course of action, given the temporary statistical anomalies in earnings we have seen this year as a result of unprecedented interventions in the economy and the labour market. I commend this statement to the House.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for our telephone conversation this morning after the Cabinet meeting informing me that it would occur.
I believe Governments should keep their manifesto promises. It may be out of fashion—it may even seem old-fashioned—but that is what I believe and that is what is right. Before I address this announcement, I want to make some observations about the triple lock policy itself. The UK state pension is low by international comparison. It compares better when pension credit and the NHS are folded in, and a lot better when occupational pensions are considered, but the core state pension itself is still very important for millions of pensioners. The last Labour Government drastically reduced the link between old age and living in poverty, but there can be no room for complacency. The triple lock and the issue  of indexation of the state pension is fundamentally about what the value of the state pension will be in future for working people today when they retire. I reject the presentation of this issue as a source of intergenerational tension or unfairness, because we all have an interest in ensuring that there is a decent state pension in future.
We should never present increased longevity as a problem. The fact that people are living longer is a good thing and it has come about because we have an NHS, because the school leaving age is no longer 14, and because pioneering Ministers of the past, such as Barbara Castle, were prepared to fight for a decent pension and retirement system. There is no doubt that the triple lock has made a significant contribution to restoring the value of the state pension following the Thatcher Government’s decision to break the link with earnings in 1980.
Turning to the Secretary of State’s proposals, the Government’s case, which is that the furlough data and the pandemic have produced a statistical aberration, has to be considered by us alongside the other decision made today, which also breaks the promises in the Conservative manifesto. Of course, we know that the promise on international aid was also broken before the recess. It is more a triple let-down than a triple lock. This decision is not a one-off but a significant repudiation of the basis on which the Government were elected and it would be naive to say otherwise.
I say to the Secretary of State that we simply cannot take the Government on their word alone. Will they show us their analysis that has led to this decision? Will they explain why they could not assess the underlying levels of wage growth with the impact of furlough discounted? Will they publish the legal advice cited as the basis for this decision? Only then could any Opposition or any MP make a decision on what is being proposed.
Finally, while the Prime Minister is well known for making and breaking promises at will, and for frequently being economical with the facts, that does come at a cost. That cost is a lack of trust, so I hope the Secretary of State appreciates that pensioners and workers, as well as the Opposition, need fuller reassurance before any decision can be made on prospective legislation.

Therese Coffey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having read the statement and for recognising some of the challenges that we face. I accept that it is his role and that of the Opposition to suggest that the Government are not taking the right course of action. However, this is where I disagree with him. He referred to the earnings link that was dropped in, I think, the late ’70s or early ’80s. It was not reinstated by the Labour party until the late noughties and was not commenced until the coalition Government were in place. That is why we have followed the triple lock policy for the last decade, recognising that we wanted to restore the earnings link and to see an increase in pensions overall. We have made good progress on that, as I set out, with the £2,050 cash-terms increase in just over a decade.
We have used the earnings link since the policy came into effect a decade ago, and we have done this on the same basis. As for trying to mess about with different bits of earnings, the Office for National Statistics produced some data but we did not find it necessarily reliable, in terms of what could be considered as a substantiated basis to make the change. I have made the recommendation to the Government—that has been endorsed today and  I hope that the House will endorse it in the forthcoming legislation—to set aside the earnings link, as we did last year, recognising the challenges of covid and the implications that that would have had last year directly on pensioners. There is the same fairness of approach here.
I do not intend, as is usual, to publish legal advice. That legal advice is quite straightforward. I would summarise it as “The best way to introduce this temporary set-aside is through legislation, just as we did last year.” I intend to take this forward on that basis.
As for making comparisons with other countries, I am conscious that we have a substantial amount of occupational pension here. We also have a whole fringe of pensioner benefits alongside it that are not necessarily available in many other countries. Just this year alone, which is about to come to an end, while the pension cost is about £105 billion, we are spending about £129 billion directly on pensioners. We have genuinely shown a measured approach to supporting pensioners during our time in office. We think this is a sensible thing that will be broadly welcomed by the public, recognising the balancing act that we continue to face.

Stephen Crabb: Government Members should be incredibly proud of the state pension triple lock. It has transformed the state pension landscape for retired people—no more derisory 75p pension increases, as we saw when Labour was in government—and it has become a key part of the defences that we have built around pensioners to protect them from poverty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the triple lock that we put in place was never designed for a set of fiscal events of the kind that we have been through over the last 18 months? The difficult decision that she has come to is the right one. When I talk to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere about the difficult challenges that we face, they understand that. We just need to explain it clearly and with compassion.

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend is right that the triple lock policy was never anticipated for these extraordinary times. He will know that, as a former Secretary of State. The Lib Dem Pensions Minister, who served a five-year term, has also publicly said again today, as well as recently, that it was simply not designed for this sort of situation. I believe that the pensioners in our country are wise people. They will recognise that a statistical anomaly is not the basis for the uplift this year. Some people will of course be keen to encourage more people to take up pension credit. We estimate that only three in four of the people who could get the benefit are taking it up, in terms of the income guarantee, and we will continue to encourage people to do so. Nevertheless, this is a sensible approach and I thank my right hon. Friend for his support.

David Linden: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Today’s bonanza of manifesto commitments being broken is like nothing we have ever seen before. I do not think I have seen this many U-turns in one day since I sat my driving test back in 2007. Not only have the Tories hiked national insurance, but now they are waging war on pensioners’ incomes by watering down the triple lock.
Despite all of today’s spin and smoke and mirrors, let us be clear what the Secretary of State’s announcement means for pensioners all across these islands. It is a clear   violation of the contract offered to voters by a Tory Prime Minister who says one thing yet does another after he gets a whopping majority in Parliament. The state pension is by far the largest source of income for UK pensioners and the triple lock has maintained this throughout the pandemic, but we know that pensioner poverty is on the rise and the UK’s state pension is already the lowest in Europe. Today’s announcement demonstrates that there is no prospect of closing that gap with a Westminster Tory Government that Scotland did not vote for and has not voted for since the 1950s.
Pensioners in independent countries comparable to Scotland’s size or smaller receive a much higher proportion of the average working wage than UK pensioners. Today’s statement provides yet more clear blue water between an uncaring, austerity-obsessed Government in London and the prospect of a fully empowered independent Scottish Parliament that will ensure dignity and fairness in retirement. Given that Scottish pensioners clearly cannot trust the British Government, will the British Government now devolve powers relating to the state pension to Scotland’s Parliament, or is it easier for Scotland to just vote for independence and end pensioner poverty from London once and for all?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman may want to speak to his Cabinet Secretary because, at the moment, the Scottish Government are not using the powers that have already been devolved. I am conscious that they intend to but it is taking quite a lot longer. One of the reasons given by them, reasonably, is the impact of covid. However, he may wish to take this up with his colleagues in Holyrood.
I am conscious of the concerns about pensioner poverty. As I mentioned, we have seen a reduction, with about 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty before and after housing costs than over a decade ago. We want to maintain that. It might be informative to the House if I mention that material deprivation, one of the other measures of poverty, is at an all-time low, with 6% of pensioners considered materially deprived. The overall trend of pensioners living in poverty has seen a dramatic fall in recent decades. That started off with the Conservative Government and then continued with the Labour Government. We have seen that halve since 1990. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that this measure is for one year only. That will be on the face of the Bill, and I am confident that that will not be amended.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is a one-year change and that she is not taking the various suggestions to scrap the triple lock completely, so it will be restored from next year? Secondly, does she believe that when we have put this rise through, the pension will realistically have roughly kept pace with the rise in earnings over the three-year period from before the start of the pandemic, or does she think that the rise will end up being a bit less than earnings on a real basis for the average worker around the country?

Therese Coffey: It would probably not be wise for me to go down that route, because we are still trying to estimate the likely uplifts in the different metrics. We will not actually use the figures until later in the year, but  because of how the machinery of benefit upratings works, we need to be in a position to trigger it in November. Given my hon. Friend’s position on the Work and Pensions Committee, he may wish to ask that question a little later once we have some more detailed analysis in that regard, if that is okay.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Stephen Timms: Is it still the Secretary of State’s view that it is important that the level of the basic state pension keeps track with earnings over time, as the coalition pension reforms assumed? If so, will it not require some further adjustment after these two exceptional years? Given that pensioner poverty was starting to increase before the pandemic, after a long period in which, as she said, that did not happen, what will her Department do to increase the currently very low take-up of pension credit?

Therese Coffey: In response to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the legislation is there regarding the earnings link and we are maintaining that. We will be doing further analysis to understand what proportion of median earnings the pension will be, but I have no plans to change aspects of it. We think it is a sensible approach that we have taken to redress the balance, which had moved away.
Forgive me, but I have forgotten the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. [Hon. Members: “Pension credit.”] Okay. The thing about pension credit is that it is split in two: the income guarantee and the savings credit. As I said to the House, our estimate is that 75% of people we think could be eligible take up the income side of pension credit, but the savings side has a much lower take-up. That is because sometimes when people do the calculation, it may be just 1p or 2p a week and they may not think it worth while to do the whole application. However, even with the savings credit side of pension credit come things like the free TV licence and access to other benefits, so we encourage people to take it up. With the income side, we estimate that three in four eligible pensioners are taking it up.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State promise to publish, at the point when she makes her final determination of the proposed increase, a three-year smoothed average or some other suitable computation so that we can see that the spirit of the promise has been kept, even if the letter could not be because of the strange gyrations of the earnings figure? I think that people would be reassured if they felt that over the longer period we had met that requirement.

Therese Coffey: I cannot give that commitment to my right hon. Friend today, because I do not know exactly what it involves, so I will take his request away and consider it. I want to emphasise that overall we have seen a variety of increases over the past decade owing to the triple lock policy. I am confident, as I have flagged already, that we have seen a substantial increase in pensioner income as a result of that policy thus far.

Christine Jardine: First, may I congratulate the Government on quite an afternoon? One afternoon, two statements, two broken promises—even for this Government, that is quite an achievement.
Despite all the problems that we have heard about, the triple lock was designed to protect pensioners, 2 million of whom live in poverty in this country, from the days when all they could expect was a 75p increase. Will the Secretary of State clarify two things? First, she said in her statement that the earnings link was set aside last year because of earnings falling by one percentage point. My understanding of the triple lock was that it would always mean the higher of 2.5% inflation or earnings, so would the percentage not have been 2.5% anyway? Secondly, would she be prepared to put it in writing, in legislation, that this is only for one year, so that pensioners do not feel that they have been asked to take the word of a Government whose word is not worth the paper it is written on?

Therese Coffey: The one year will be set out in the Bill, which I expect to be published tomorrow. As I have said, Steve Webb—the former Lib Dem pensions Minister, who probably knows more about pensions than any other member of the Liberal Democrat party—has been very public about the fact that this is a pragmatic approach, in effect, and it is not what this was designed for. I also point out that, when I made a similar statement last year, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who usually speaks on DWP matters for the Liberal Democrats, asked about what would happen next year and whether we should anticipate that something like this approach might be needed again. That was a fair question, but it was important that we took things one year at a time because we did not know the future impact.
As I have already articulated to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), this will be for one year only. The setting aside of the earnings link is because earnings are built into the Pensions Act. If we had not changed the law last year, we would not have been allowed by law to have increased the state pension at all; it would have been frozen in cash terms. Just as last year we set aside the earnings link to allow the uprating and ensure that state pensions were not frozen, this year we are setting it aside to correct for the fact that we have a statistical anomaly.

Steve Double: It is quite clear that this is one of a number of very difficult decisions that we are having to make, and I think most reasonable people understand the reason: the pandemic and its impact on our economy. We do not do this lightly—we do it with a heavy heart—but it is the responsible thing to do. I have actually had emails from constituents who are pensioners, saying that they should not get an 8% increase this year, because they understand that these are very unique circumstances.
I am grateful that the Secretary of State has confirmed that this will be a one-year change. Will she also lay out what the Government have in place to support the lowest-paid and poorest pensioners at this time?

Therese Coffey: Before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, I need to correct part of my last answer: the earnings link is not in the Pensions Act, but in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, so apologies for that.
My hon. Friend is right. I am conscious that we want to help our pensioners at this difficult time. I have already referred to some of the benefits that may be  available for people to take up where there is a pension already. We have done a significant campaign in the past year to improve take-up of pension credit and we will continue to signpost people accordingly to take advantage of the benefits that are available to some of our poorest pensioners.

Andrew Gwynne: There is no glossing over this announcement. The suspension of the triple lock will come as a blow to many pensioners in Denton and Reddish—it is a broken promise from this Government.
I know that the prime reason for this statement was the uprating announcement, but it was badged as a pensions update. May I express my dismay that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to respond to the ombudsman’s finding of maladministration in respect of the 1950s-born women’s pensions issue? When will she comment on that?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of how the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman works in this inquiry specifically. The inquiry is happening in a staged process; we are not expected to give a response, because the process is not yet over. Unusually, the ombudsman has chosen to publish part of the judgment thus far, and there are further stages to come. The hon. Gentleman might want to read carefully the statement that was made, because he should be aware that the period of maladministration is linked to the years between 2005 and 2007, when the Labour Government were in power.

Clive Efford: We have become used to the Government’s breaking of manifesto pledges, for instance on overseas aid and a border in the Irish sea, but today we have had two in one day, which is pretty remarkable. First, we heard the Prime Minister announce that he would break his pledge not to increase national insurance—which was not just in the manifesto, but something he had specifically singled out and pledged not to do—and now we have heard about the breaking of the triple lock, which was put in place by the last Labour Government and which played a significant part in reducing pensioner poverty.
We have heard from the Secretary of State that the Department is doing some work to advertise pension credit and encourage uptake, but we did not really hear from her any specifics, or any urgency, about the need to deal with the under-claiming of pension credit. So will she give us some more details about what she is intending to do?

Therese Coffey: As I have already pointed out, in terms of income guarantee, three in four of the people we have estimated may be eligible are taking up the approach. Ultimately, it is for people to apply for this extra benefit.
Relative to earnings, the state pension is now the highest that it has been in 33 years, so the policy that we have undertaken has been well and truly honoured. I believe that, because this constitutes a statistical anomaly, it is not an appropriate way in which to be using our public finances. I am very conscious that pensioners will expect us to be taking a sensible approach to sustaining the public finances, and a statistical anomaly is not one of the approaches that I believe they would accept.

Joanna Cherry: May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about the women born in the 1950s, who have paid national insurance contributions for at least 40 years? Many are having to continue working through ill health or else face financial hardship or claim benefits, and now they face higher national insurance contributions.
Regardless of which party is responsible for the maladministration that occurred, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration. Perhaps more important, at the time of the last general election, many Tory MPs made promises to the WASPI women which have yet to be fulfilled. What I would like to hear from the Secretary of State today is whether she can give them any hope for the future—any hope that she will revisit the issue of compensation.

Therese Coffey: I appreciate that this is a statement about the uprating, but let me just remind the hon. and learned Lady of the situation relating to the change in state pension age. It was voted through by Parliament in 1995, and there have been changes in the last decade. The Supreme Court made a ruling. We have been through the cases, and the right of Parliament to set the pension age has been upheld, so we will not be reviewing anything to do with the state pension age in response to the WASPI campaign.

Mike Amesbury: Given that the Secretary of State and every other Tory MP stood on a manifesto commitment not to increase national insurance contributions and hit the lowest paid—whom people gladly applauded every Thursday some months ago—and also affirmed the retention of the triple lock, how on earth can the people of Weaver Vale and people across Britain trust a word that the Secretary of State or any Members on those Government Benches utter in this place?

Therese Coffey: I think that the people of this country are very wise. I think that they will have seen the £407 billion package provided by this Government to support taxpayers. We are doing our best to protect lives and livelihoods, and I am absolutely convinced that our pensioners will not want to statistical anomaly to be the basis of a pension uplift when they recognise the challenges that this country has faced and what it has been through. I strongly believe that we are doing the right thing, and  I hope that it will gain the support of the House when we present the legislation.

Bill Presented

Misuse of Fireworks bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Owen, supported by Rachel Hopkins, presented a Bill to make provision about offences relating to the misuse of fireworks and penalties for such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 156).

Transport (Disabled Passenger Charter)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Charlotte Nichols: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a passenger charter for disabled land transport passengers setting out their rights, the legal obligations of transport operators, complaints procedures, passenger assistance schemes and accessibility requirements; and for connected purposes.
This week, our Paralympic heroes return from Tokyo, basking in glory and adorned with medals after a stunning fortnight of gruelling competition and thrilling battles, yet amid all the cheers that they arrive home to, many will also be greeted by the same barriers that disabled people face day in and day out. More than one in five of our constituents live with a disability—more than 14 million in total. Disabled people deserve every opportunity to live their lives to the full, but they face particular challenges simply getting around, for the purpose of work, socialising or everyday necessities.
Our public transport system is poorly integrated and can be a frustration for many of us, but far more so for disabled passengers who may take longer at interchanges, and may need help or support in embarking or disembarking or to recognise destinations. For disabled passengers, predictability is at a premium and up-to-date information is essential, as they may need to plan well in advance for even a relatively simple journey.
To provide a snapshot, here is the experience of Charles, as related to Scope, the disability equality charity. He said:
“Like many disabled people, I rely on public transport. Travelling can be a frustrating part of my day, especially as someone who has a limited amount of vision remaining. I’m the proud owner of a guide dog called Carlo. He's very excitable and eager to be outside for walks and adventures. Carlo fundamentally gives me my freedom and ability to visit new places, but without public transport, we’d both be stuck. I was brought up using public transport and try not to depend on anyone to drive me places, so I’m quite confident and independent. My biggest challenge with public transport is the amount of time involved with planning. A trip can take me double, or even triple the time to travel. Not to mention, having to leave almost an hour early in case of the usual delays or cancellation of services.”
Beyond the necessities of using public transport, for many disabled people, it is a point of pride to be able to do so, a demonstration and unlocking of their ability to lead independent lives. We should be determined to make our transport as accessible as possible. However, according to a 2019 survey of disabled people for Scope, 30% said that difficulties with public transport had reduced their independence, and as many as four in five said that they felt stressed or anxious when planning or carrying out such a journey. It is worth emphasising that the survey was pre-covid, so did not even take into account the additional fears that disabled people will have faced in travelling on public transport over the past couple of years—not least those unable to wear masks, who have often been unreasonably challenged about this.
There has been much legislation and regulation to improve disabled people’s rights over the past quarter-century, but many of those well-intended rules have added up to a patchwork of rights across different modes of transport, both for accessing travel and for raising complaints when disabled people have been let down. If complaints are not made, we cannot know whether existing regulations are being properly followed or enforced. The Office of Rail and Road’s annual rail consumer report 2019 stated that an average of a quarter of disabled passengers had not received all the assistance they had booked, which had left them frighteningly stranded, or humiliatingly relying on asking for assistance from fellow passengers. However, we deserve to know the accurate numbers to improve this unacceptable situation.
Let me give another example of testimony. Here is Ami’s story, again courtesy of Scope. She said:
“There have been countless times, when my mum has booked assistance and yet they don’t turn up until the last minute, causing me a great deal of anxiety. On two occasions, other passengers have had to lift me in my wheelchair on and off the train because assistance never arrived. This is dangerous, not only for me, but for the passengers that are lifting me too. If it were not for their kindness, then we wouldn’t have gotten home, or been able to attend important appointments. Quieter stations understandably have less staff, but they’re often more efficient when assistance is needed. It’s the bigger and busier stations that need to look into why some disabled people are not receiving a positive experience when assistance is required.”
Problems or distressing circumstances can arise across all sorts of types of transport, including fear of being overcharged for a taxi journey, not knowing whether a parent with a pushchair will make space for a wheelchair on the bus, or pre-booked assistance not turning up to help a disembarkation from a train. In each case it is more difficult than it needs to be for a disabled traveller to look up their rights or indeed to lodge a complaint. According to Scope’s survey, one in six disabled people   said they had not complained about a problem because they did not know if they had the right to do so. Disabled people deserve better.
This is why my Bill would bring together the pre-existing rules into a passenger charter for disabled people. This would be a simple, accessible document covering all modes of land transport and setting out exactly what disabled passengers can expect, no matter where or how they are travelling. Taking this step would bolster the confidence of disabled passengers in their rights, and signpost how to get recompense if they deserve it. Adding such transparency and accountability should also improve the services required.
A single document would also expose where there are currently irregularities, gaps in provision or other anomalies that can be addressed. This may involve differences between providers or concepts that are not universally recognised, such as quiet areas for people with autism. Codifying a charter for disabled passengers would help operators as well as travellers. I hope that the Government and Members across the House will agree that this is a simple, inexpensive step that we can take to improve the quality of life of disabled people across the country.
Before I finish, I want to thank Scope for its research and tireless campaigning for these measures, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), whose excellent work on preparing and championing this Bill was halted only by her well-deserved promotion. I am glad to see her here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Charlotte Nichols, Lilian Greenwood, Huw Merriman, Alan Brown, Jim Shannon, Jamie Stone, Florence Eshalomi, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Paula Barker, Kim Johnson, Ian Byrne and Navendu Mishra present the Bill.
Charlotte Nichols accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 157).

Point of Order

Abena Oppong-Asare: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise this point of order in response to my question yesterday on the fact that I have received no substantial response to any cases relating to Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said yesterday that
“by close of play today every single one of the emails from colleagues around this House will be answered”.—[Official Report, 6 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 26.]
By this morning, I had still received no response to any of my cases, and I have received a further 17 cases to which I have received no substantial response. Can you please advise me on how the Prime Minister can be encouraged to come back to the House and correct the record, and on how I can ensure that I receive responses to these urgent cases without further delay?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I understand her concern about this. I know that undertakings were made yesterday, and the House will want to see them fulfilled, so I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order and will relay it back to the Prime Minister and his office, to ensure that those undertakings are fulfilled.

Elections Bill

Second Reading

Rosie Winterton: I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected. I also want to add that I will only call people who have put in to speak and who are here at the beginning of the debate. They will be expected to be here for the wind-ups as well.

Chloe Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I look forward to a thorough and thoughtful debate across the House. Indeed, our work in Parliament is a key pillar of our democracy, a democracy that is underpinned by free and fair elections. Like many public services across the UK, our electoral services have not been untouched by the pandemic. Earlier this year, we faced unprecedented challenges in delivering the most complex combination of polls in memory during a pandemic. Many suggested we should postpone the elections for a second time, but I was not willing to deprive people of the chance to have their say without having done everything in our power to try. That was why the Government provided an additional £32 million of funding, sourced over 5,000 volunteers to support electoral teams and took creative steps to ensure that people could cast their vote. I am proud of the ingenuity and determination displayed by so many to ensure that our citizens were able to exercise their democratic rights. That is no less than I would expect, given the passion and capability of what is often a small number of election staff in our local authorities, to whom I pay tribute today. We cannot take them, or the system, for granted.
We are the stewards of a fantastic democratic heritage. We committed in our manifesto to secure the integrity of elections, restore constitutional balance and defend our democracy against increasingly sophisticated threats. This Bill keeps our elections secure, fair, transparent and up to date. Part 1 of the Bill is about getting the basics of our elections right by updating the security and integrity of the ballot. That is why it introduces new measures that will stamp out the potential for voter fraud from our elections. There are some who suggest that this is not a problem, but I would like to disagree.
Interlinked types of fraudulent criminality are a very real threat to the integrity of our elections. Clear evidence of this was seen at the 2014 election scandal in Tower Hamlets, where the mayoral contest was declared void due to corrupt and illegal practices. The judgment in the case and the witnesses who spoke at the trial tell a story of harm and fraud that struck at an entire community and fatally undermined democracy. Recalling crowds harassing voters, one witness reported:
“I got into conversation with an elderly lady who was frightened to go in and vote and said that she had decided not to vote as a result of the intimidation.”
Another witness described her experience of having her vote stolen by a campaigner for a candidate she did not support. She recalled:
“They came to me and took my signature and then took the blank ballot paper from me. I normally go to the polling station. I told them I was used to doing it myself and didn’t understand why it was different this year.”
Crucially, although it is much harder to identify and prosecute, we know that personation was also one of the corrupt and illegal practices that took place in Tower Hamlets. The Electoral Commission has noted that
“the majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders.”
This is unacceptable. Why should criminals get two votes, or even more, and their victims lose their voices?

Catherine West: Would the Minister accept that, while some of these measures might be necessary, we have only a 30% turnout in some of our elections and this could make turnout even lower due to the added bureaucracy and the added information that people will need to provide in order to cast their ballot?

Chloe Smith: I am pleased the hon. Lady has made that point so early in the debate. I join her, as I want everyone here to do, in welcoming turnout and in wanting to raise registration and participation in our elections.
I will more precisely address the points that the hon. Lady understandably makes because, no, I do not think these measures will damage turnout. The point is that the vulnerabilities in our system let people down. The 2016 report on electoral fraud by Sir Eric Pickles, now Lord Pickles, leading international election observers and the Electoral Commission all agree that those vulnerabilities are a security risk. As the noble Lord Pickles said,
“our well-respected democracy is at threat from unscrupulous people intent on subverting the will of the electorate”.
We must do our utmost to guard against that, and we must have measures in place to discourage and prevent it.
Part 1 of the Bill therefore introduces what many would consider to be an obvious requirement—the requirement to prove that the vote a person is casting that day is theirs and theirs alone.

Anna McMorrin: Does the Minister agree that voter ID is actually voter suppression, and that this Bill misses an opportunity for real engagement in not giving 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to vote? Does she agree that this is the perfect time to do that?

Chloe Smith: The short answer is no, no and no, and I am happy to explain why. I am sure we will get on to this in the debate, but the point about voter identification is that it is not voter suppression or voter disenfranchisement, which is a word we occasionally hear thrown around. In fact, I look forward to Labour Members explaining why their reasoned amendment suggests that people will be removed from the franchise for general elections. Where in the Bill is the clause that does that? They will not find it, of course, because it is not there. The Bill does not do that, and we should be careful with the words we choose to use, such as “voter suppression” and “disenfranchisement.”
We already have an election check, but the check is so outdated and unfit for purpose that many have forgotten it. People already identify themselves when they go to the polling station, but it is a Victorian test of saying their name and address. The world has moved on, and we need to move with it. Showing photo identification is a reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are. Many people would question why it is not already the case.

Alex Sobel: A pensioner can bring their bus pass as identification, but the Bill disproportionately disadvantages young people who cannot bring their student card or university or college identification. Will those young people not be disproportionately affected, and should we not expand the range of identification that is recognised by the Bill, as a minimum?

Chloe Smith: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is getting into the detail of what is actually being proposed, which is excellent. He makes the important point that schedule 1 has a widespread and broad-based list of identification. In fact, 98% of the population hold those forms of ID.

Alistair Carmichael: These proposals were trialled in 2019, and during that trial 2,000 people were turned away for not having the correct form of identification. Of those 2,000, 700 did not return to vote. Whether it is voter suppression is a question of semantics, but it is hardly encouragement, is it?

Chloe Smith: Under this Bill, as is clear in the impact assessment and the associated documents, there will be a widespread public communication campaign to ensure awareness so that people know what to bring with them to the polling station, which is only right. That is exactly what we would expect, because we want people to be able to take part in our elections.

Maria Miller: The Minister is making an excellent speech introducing the Bill. There is another side to this issue, as pointed out by the Electoral Commission’s research showing that two in three people would feel much more confident in the security of our voting system if there were voter ID. Surely that has to be taken into consideration by those who have been intervening.

Chloe Smith: My right hon. Friend makes my next point for me, and she is right. It is important that we think about what will increase confidence in our elections, and I would love the message to go out loud and clear from the Chamber today, and from the reporting and discourse on this Bill, that we all want participation and we want to talk up our election system rather than talking it down.
I understand there are genuine concerns about this change and our plans to implement it, which is why I have met many organisations that represent voters from different backgrounds to understand what challenges it may present. I will continue to listen and to benefit from their wisdom.

Joanna Cherry: I was concerned to hear the Minister imply that concerns about voter suppression are somehow party political. Does she accept that the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, found that the
“introduction of a voter ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups with protected characteristics who are less likely to hold…photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities”?
Inclusion Scotland backs up that concern. Given that cross-party finding, what plans do the Government have to mitigate any discriminatory impacts on these groups?

Chloe Smith: It might not have been the intention of the hon. and learned Lady to assist me in making this case, but she does because she allows me to make the critical point that this scheme is underpinned by a free local voter card. I have already mentioned that 98% of people already hold the identification that will be asked for by the scheme. For those who do not, we are making sure there is the free alternative of a local voter card.

Alec Shelbrooke: When we cut through the noise, is it not true that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that we cannot have definite security in our elections if we do not have photo ID? Is it also not the case that we are being asked to continue a practice that puts us outside international standards?

Chloe Smith: That is exactly the case. Indeed, countries around the world already operate this system with ease, and not only other countries. This policy is already successfully and easily operated inside our own United Kingdom, and we need to learn from the Northern Ireland experience.

Ronnie Cowan: The Minister alludes to Northern Ireland, which already has this in place. What analysis, if any, have the Government made of the situation in Northern Ireland? Can she tell me that the scheme has not had a negative impact on voter turnout in Northern Ireland? What analysis has there been, and by whom?

Chloe Smith: There is a considerable evidence base on what has happened in Northern Ireland, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), would be only too happy to respond further to that point later in the debate. Both he and I are happy to say that there is not a clear direct link between turnout and this scheme, because turnout can be influenced by lots of different factors. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) will accept that, especially when he thinks about how much turnout he would like in a future referendum, for example.
We need to put in place a scheme that commands confidence, that aids people’s confidence in elections and that will not be discriminatory. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the work we have done through our pilots, modelling and analysis, through the Northern Ireland experience and through working with organisations shows us we can be sure that, with the free local voter  card, there will be an opportunity for everybody who is eligible to vote to continue to do so. That is fundamental to the concerns that have been expressed.

John Redwood: I am pleased that the Minister is taking fraud seriously and has come forward with sensible proposals. Is it not the case that, in a world of mass fraud, we are all getting used to having to provide ID and digital identification? Is it not the case that many employees, including Members of Parliament, need a photo pass even to go to work?

Chloe Smith: I will make two points on that. The first is that we show identification in everyday life, and reasonably and proportionately so. For example, we show it when we pick up a parcel or apply for a range of other services. Let me give a word of reassurance to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is sitting behind him: what we have with this scheme is not a form of ID database, beyond, of course, that which is already there in the electoral registers. I offer that reassurance in response to an alternative argument that may come out in today’s debate compared with what we often hear from the left.
I am surprised that I need to use the words of a former Labour Government to say this, but I cannot do it plainer than this. When they introduced this policy in Northern Ireland in 2003, they said:
“If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]
The Electoral Commission also states:
“Since the introduction of photo ID in Northern Ireland there have been no reported cases of personation. Voters’ confidence that elections are well-run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations”.
Let me make some progress and set out what else is in this wide-ranging Bill. I must stress that it is not just in-person electoral fraud that this part of the Bill will combat, and that is important because criminals use all kinds of corrupt behaviour together, as we saw in Tower Hamlets and, sadly, elsewhere. Voting by post or by proxy are essential tools for supporting voters to exercise their rights, and they must remain available options for voters who may not wish to, or cannot, vote at a polling station. So this Bill also introduces sensible safeguards against the abuse of postal and proxy voting.

Mark Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that often the victims of postal vote harvesting are those who come from many of the groups that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned, including those who do not have English as a first language, and that this is a good protection for them and for our democratic process?

Chloe Smith: I fear that that may be right. I know that my hon. Friend and others have experience, for example at council level, where they may have seen this happening at first hand. Today, I want to allow a Bill to make progress that will give confidence that a person’s vote is theirs alone, and that is vital. Did we not see that before when we introduced individual electoral registration? Voices were saying that it, too, would never work, but  did we not see that it was about reducing the influence of the head of the household on who was allowed to register? That is an important point to remember.
The part of the Bill on postal and proxy voting includes new limits on the number of postal votes that may be handed in by any one individual, and a limit of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. In order to tackle “vote harvesting”, the Bill is also making it an offence for political campaigners to handle postal votes issued to others, unless they are family members or carers of the voter.
Of course, stealing someone’s vote is not always done by personation or by taking someone’s ballot physically. As I mentioned, an equally sinister method that we have seen is people using intimidation, or pressuring people to cast their vote in a certain way or not to vote at all. That is known in the law as “undue influence”. The existing legislation on undue influence, which, again, originated in the 19th century, is difficult to interpret and enforce, so we are providing greater clarity, ensuring that there can be no doubt that it is an offence to intimidate, deceive, or cause harm to electors in order to influence their vote.
I have touched on the ways in which the Bill will combat the silencing of democratic voices by those seeking to influence or steal an individual’s vote, and I will now touch upon more ways in which the Bill will empower our citizens.

Geraint Davies: The Minister will be aware that loud claims of personation were made by the Trump campaign in the United States, which were completely without any basis or evidence, and which led to an assault on the Capitol building in Washington that suspended democracy itself. Does she think that as a Minister she should be promulgating an evidence-free claim that personation is a widespread problem that needs solving, with the cost being to deny millions of people their vote?

Chloe Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of this House, think he should be promulgating such nonsense? I do not think so.
One of the truest pillars of our democracy is the trust that we place in our citizens’ choices and the respect we give their decision. While we make voting in elections more secure, we also want to ensure that voters who may still require additional support to navigate that system, such as those with disabilities, have that support. This is why we are introducing key changes from our call for evidence on access to elections, extending the requirements on returning officers to support a wider range of voters with disabilities and extending the definition of who can act as a “companion” to anyone aged 18 or over.
In the same spirit, looking a little further afield, part 2 of the Bill will ensure that the voices of British citizens across the world can be heard, and their vote taken into account on matters that do affect them, by removing the 15-year limit on voting rights of British citizens living abroad.

Bambos Charalambous: On people with disabilities, clause 8 talks about people who are blind and about
“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote”.
Blind people still find it difficult to have this access through existing legislation. Does the Minister not consider that that measure actually weakens the provision that blind people have? Will she meet the Royal National Institute of Blind People and listen to its views, because it has serious concerns about the clause?

Chloe Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because I know a number of hon. Members care about it, and rightly so. I can reassure him and everybody here today that I have been working with the RNIB for months and indeed years to make the improvements we need to the system for allowing blind and partially sighted voters to cast their vote. In answer to his specific question, I do not think that the measures in this Bill weaken that support; I think they strengthen it, by ensuring that a wider range of voters with disabilities—or, should I say, a wider range of disabilities—may be properly supported at the polling station. That is important, as we would not wish some to be unsupported by a phrasing in legislation that is now outdated and overly narrow—that is what our reform seeks to tackle.

Jonathan Edwards: On the Minister’s point about empowering citizens, she will be aware of reforms in Wales and Scotland whereby any legal citizen, no matter their nationality, can vote in our respective parliamentary elections and local elections. This Bill seems to be limiting the ability of European nationals to vote in local elections in England and in Westminster elections. Why is Westminster going on a totally different path from Wales and Scotland?

Chloe Smith: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because there are two things to be said. The first, which I shall come to shortly in my remarks, is about how we are updating the franchise to reflect the position of EU citizens. The other important thing, which is worth making clear at this juncture, is that parts of the devolution settlements apply to electoral policy and so it is important to be clear that in this Bill we are looking at measures that will apply UK-wide—a full analysis is available, of course, in the Bill documents. That means we will have consistency at parliamentary elections, but a natural consequence of devolution is that there may be differences at other levels. I think we would both accept that and seek to work to make those arrangements a success for voters who may experience both sets of arrangements and for the hard-working election staff who may administer both sets.
As I have completed my remarks on overseas electors, I shall carry on moving through the Bill. At this point, I wish to address the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment. It may come as little surprise that, regrettably, they take two opposite positions in one amendment: on the one hand they would like British citizens to participate more—indeed, that was their manifesto position—and on the other hand they do not. The official policy of the Liberal Democrats is to support votes for life, and the policy paper that they published in July 2019 said:
“There is no reason why”
expats
“should be treated any differently to those who continue to live in the UK.”
I agree. The Bill puts in place tougher measures against foreign interference and foreign money, but overseas British citizens are just that—British—and are therefore  able both to vote and to donate. There is a long-standing principle, originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister references the Committee on Standards in Public Life; why has she not included in the Bill any of the Committee’s recommendations on campaign finance?

Chloe Smith: I shall come to campaign finance shortly, but is that all the right hon. Gentleman has to say on overseas voters?
Let me turn to the voting rights of EU citizens, an important subject that has been asked about. Part 2 of the Bill updates the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens who reside in the UK and moves to a more reciprocal model that fits our new arrangements. We stand by our commitments to those EU citizens who were resident here before our exit from the EU, so any EU citizen who was a resident before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 and has legal immigration status will retain their voting and candidacy rights. That goes beyond our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. For EU citizens who have moved to the UK following our EU exit, local voting and candidacy rights will be granted on the basis of bilateral agreements with the individual EU member states that will reciprocate arrangements for British citizens who live there.
We all want to make progress this afternoon, so let me move on as fast I can through the rest of the Bill. I have set out the ways in which the Bill will bolster the security of our elections; let me move on to the enforcement of electoral law. A critical part of our electoral system is and must continue to be effective, independent regulation, and the Electoral Commission has a vital role to play. Lord Pickles found that the
“current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission—by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—does not provide an effective third-party check on its performance”,
so we think it is right for Parliament to have an increased role. The Bill will introduce a strategy and policy statement that will provide guidance to which the commission will have to have regard in the discharge of its functions. It will be subject to statutory consultation, parliamentary approval and regular review.
We will also improve the parliamentary structures that hold the regulator to account. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission currently has a limited remit; the Bill will therefore give it the additional power to examine the commission’s compliance with its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement. That will allow Parliament to better scrutinise the work of the commission. Together, the reforms will facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Electoral Commission’s work while respecting its independence.
It is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s reasoned amendment misrepresents scrutiny by Parliament and misunderstands—or again wilfully misrepresents the fact—that the commission remains governed, in law, by its commissioners. We are also clarifying that the Electoral Commission should not bring prosecutions, and that prosecutions should remain with the existing prosecution authorities.
Let me move on to political finance, which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We already have a comprehensive regulatory framework for campaigning that is rooted in the principles of fairness, transparency and the importance of a level playing field. We want to ensure that our electoral law continues to uphold those principles, which is why part 4 of the Bill will update and strengthen our political finance laws to restrict all third-party spending to UK-based entities and eligible overseas electors; to increase transparency around third-party campaigning at elections and the registration of new political parties; and to prohibit parties and campaigners from unfairly expanding their spending limits. The Bill will ensure that campaign spending can come only from sources that have a genuine and legitimate interest in UK elections, by restricting all third-party spending to UK-based entities and registered overseas electors, above a £700 minimum threshold.
On the regulation of third-party campaigners, it is right that those who campaign at elections and seek to influence voters are subject to transparency requirements and rules that maintain a level playing field. Those principles already apply. The Bill seeks to balance the burden of regulation, relative to the level of campaign spending, with the importance of a thriving and diverse public debate.
The Bill will not change the definition of what constitutes controlled expenditure for a third-party campaigner. The Electoral Commission already provides guidance, developed with third-party groups, on what constitutes such expenditure. To ensure that any other legitimate categories of third party that may emerge in future are not significantly restricted in their ability to campaign, a power will be given to the Secretary of State to amend the list of legal entities eligible to register as campaigners under section 88(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Any change to that list made via a statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. The Opposition amendment is simply wrong: the last time I checked, democratic parliamentary procedure on an SI is not “unilateral” change by a Secretary of State.

Catherine West: The Minister talks about third-party involvement in our elections. Is she satisfied that the proposed legislation complies with the recommendations from the Russia report from last summer?

Chloe Smith: Yes, I am. What we are doing in the Bill, as I have already explained, is moving undue foreign influence out of our politics. We are doing that with this new category of campaign regulation that we are introducing. I have just referred to it and it includes an above £700 minimum threshold. It ensures that campaign spending can come only from sources that have a genuine and legitimate interest in UK elections.

Catherine West: indicated dissent.

Chloe Smith: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is what it does, and that is important.

Martin Docherty: We discussed this matter in Westminster Hall back in 2019. As one of my colleagues reminded us, in 2019, the Conservative party received £400,000, with one donation coming from the household of a former Russian Minister  under Vladimir Putin eight months after the Salisbury poisonings. There was also money from a personal friend of the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Does the Minister not agree that this does not go far enough to stop this happening again?

Chloe Smith: I have three points. First, this Bill does the right thing, as I have just explained. Secondly, the Conservative party does the right thing with regard to our donations, as I am happy to explain and defend at any time. Thirdly, I am already having to pass through so many pages in my briefing to find the bit about the SNP because there are quite a few points about how it handles its donations as well. I do think it is important that a person gets their house in order before they accuse others.
Let me move on to the important matter of notional expenditure. We are talking here about measures that will deliver better transparency for voters and candidates. I am sure that many in this House will welcome the clarification of the law on notional expenditure that is included in the Bill, which will ensure that candidates and their agents can continue to conduct full campaigns without the fear, as found by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee,
“of falling foul of the law through no fault of their own”
and inadvertently causing candidates to exceed their spending limits.
I will go on now to the new electoral sanction of intimidation. A free choice for voters means that anyone entitled to stand as a candidate must feel able to do so. Without a broad range of candidates for voters to choose from, we diminish representation in this country. I am sad to see a rising number of incidents of people trying to exclude others from the debate through violent or illegal behaviour. Voters do not expect violence in our elections. People should not be fearful of expressing their views or standing up in public service. That is why the Bill introduces an additional sanction that will bar an individual found guilty of intimidating a candidate, campaigner or elected representative from running or holding office for five years on top of their sentence.

Joanna Cherry: rose—

Chloe Smith: If the hon. and learned Lady would like to come in at this point I will give way, but I think that that may be one of the last interventions that I take because I need to make some progress.

Joanna Cherry: I am just concerned that the hon. Lady has moved on from dealing with part 4, which deals with regulation of expenditure, before answering the question put by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which is: what will the Government do about the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life? The Committee published a very full report after a year of work on 7 July suggesting a number of recommendations—I think that it is 47 practical steps to modernise and streamline the way in which donations and spending are reported regularly to then enforce. Will she tell us which if any of those recommendations she will bring forward as Government amendments.

Rosie Winterton: Let me gently remind colleagues that the Minister has been on her feet now for 33 minutes. I know that many colleagues want to contribute, so I am anxious that we make some progress.

Chloe Smith: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to be as quick as I can in concluding my remarks.
The answer to the hon. and learned Lady is that, first, we will be responding in full to what the CSPL said. There are some very good points and ideas in there that we are already able to deliver through the Bill, such as diminishing the extent of foreign influence through political finance in our system. There is also much more that has been drawn out over many years by other bodies. I am talking about the Select Committees here, Members of the Lords, the Association of Electoral Administrators and many, many others. There is a lot of discussion and debate about how we should keep our electoral system safe. I am proud to introduce a Bill that does the most important and pressing of those, and which will have the overall effect of keeping our elections safe, modern, transparent, fair and inclusive.
Part 6 of the Bill introduces a new digital imprints regime, which will be one of the most comprehensive in the world. I think that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that, because we all agree that voters all, rightly, want to know who is talking. The Bill will require digital campaigning material to display a digital imprint explicitly showing who is behind it—all year round and wherever they may be in the world. This provision will deliver on recommendations made by many to improve public trust and confidence in digital campaigns at future elections and referendums.

David Morris: Would this measure translate to websites fronted by political activists masquerading as members of the public concerned about a different cause?

Chloe Smith: Political and election material will be included. I look forward to discussing the finer details as we work through the Bill. It is incredibly important that we have that transparency so that voters can make their choice as they think best.
Before I close, I need to deal with the Labour party’s amendment and its position—or, should I say, its many positions? It is a mystery to me why the Labour party seems to think that identification is good enough for its own members, but not for the British electorate. One person, one vote: it is a really simple formula. Why would anybody believe that criminals should get two? This is not what we ought to believe. Why does the Labour amendment say that the Bill restricts the general election franchise? I do not think that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will be able to explain why, because it does no such thing. Why would the Labour party be doing this? Because it has its own murky interests in making it up and misrepresenting the Bill. Perhaps the other parties—

Catherine West: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Until this point, the debate was going quite well, but that allegation is a disgrace. I ask you to withdraw it, Minister. Everyone in this Chamber works very hard in elections and it is in everyone’s interests to have elections that are well run and well respected. That kind of insult makes people denigrate our democracy, which we fight day in, day out to protect, and which  we cherish—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The point of order should be addressed to me, rather than to the Minister. I can assure the hon. Lady that if anything had been said that was disorderly, I would have advised the Minister that it was disorderly.

Chloe Smith: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do hope that the other parties who supported today’s amendment have those high standards to which we all aspire. They will be able to judge clearly where they see politicking at play. I also hope that the House can judge that as clearly as was set out in the judgment of the Tower Hamlets case, which stated that the convicted perpetrators
“spent a great deal of time accusing their opponents…of ‘dividing the community’ but, if anyone was ‘dividing the community’, it was they.”
The judge went on to say,
“The real losers in this case are the citizens”.
As I have set out, the Government’s vision for UK democracy is a system that is secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent. We have a strong history; a robust constitution; a model of democracy that is copied around the world; a thriving tradition of campaigning and passionate public participation; and the highest standards of security, fairness and transparency.
The improvements in the Bill will raise confidence even further in our elections. They are reasonable, proportionate and carefully planned measures that command support and come from common sense. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: As colleagues will see, a number of Members would like to speak, so we will start with a time limit of six minutes.

Cat Smith: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a second reading to the Elections Bill, notwithstanding the need for legislation around digital imprints and some accessibility improvements for disabled voters which do not go far enough, because it infringes on the right of expression of the electorate by allowing the Secretary of State to unilaterally modify and select which groups are allowed to campaign during an election period, creates unnecessary barriers to entry for voting, makes the Electoral Commission subordinate to the executive, would serve to restrict the franchise and thereby reduce the overall number of people able to participate in any future UK General Election and does not make provision for the UK Parliament to match the devolved nations in Scotland and Wales by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds and other disenfranchised groups.
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. Let me begin by quoting: the law governing elections is “voluminous”, “fragmented” and “extremely complex”, with some provisions
“dating back to the 19th century”.
I used that quote from the Law Commission’s 2016 report back in 2016, when I first became Labour’s shadow spokesperson for elections, a role that I still hold. Since 2016, it is like nothing has happened. The Government did not make any changes on the back of  those recommendations, and the Elections Bill continues to make absolutely no progress on them or on the recommendations of many reports that have been published since. In fact, over the past decade the Government have failed to take any action to modernise our electoral laws or to close the loopholes that allow foreign money to flood into our democracy; this Bill actually makes that threat far greater and does not reduce it at all. I think the reason is very clear and those of us on the Opposition Benches have seen right through it: it is because these laws will lead to benefits for the Conservative party. In the Bill we have before us, the Government have not reached out for cross-party consensus as is typical for a Bill of this type which massively changes electoral law and deals with constitutional matters. It would be normal to see a Speaker’s Committee put together before such massive changes were brought forward. There has been no attempt by the Government to reach out for a cross-party consensus on a matter as important as our elections and our democracy.
This Bill is a huge missed opportunity to modernise our electoral law to bring it into the 21st century and try to encourage people to participate in our democracy. Indeed, our democracy is stronger when more people take part in it. In this Bill we see that the leaders would like to choose the voters. I believe that the voters should choose the leaders of their country, yet the flagship part of this Bill is very much about the leaders of this country choosing who are the voters.

David Davis: I am a known critic of this Bill, but I will say to the hon. Lady that when I served through over a decade of Labour Government, they did not once consult the Opposition when they changed electoral law—not once.

Cat Smith: For years now, I have stood opposite the Minister responsible for the constitution and we have talked about many ways of improving our democracy. I had hoped that this Bill would contain some of the many topics that we have discussed across the Dispatch Box and in Committee, to expand the franchise to make it more inclusive. That might include spending the £120 million that will be spent on the electoral ID system to encourage registration to make sure that the millions missing from our electoral roll are included, making it easier for homeless people to register to vote—but no, none of that is included in this Bill, which would in fact serve to reverse decades of progress. I draw attention to the recent changes made by the Welsh Labour Government to expand the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Some of the Conservative Members here today should consider the implications of this Bill for their constituents whose votes they perhaps relied on to get into this House, and how difficult it is for so many people in this country to have access to ID, because it is expensive—£80-odd for a passport and £43 for a driving licence. This is a paywall to the ballot box.

Mark Fletcher: The Minister set out in her opening remarks that 98% of people have access to appropriate ID already and that a free alternative will be available from councils, so I am a little baffled by the argument that the hon. Lady is making.

Cat Smith: Is the hon. Member saying that 2% of his electorate should not have access to democracy? That appears to be what he is saying. Yes, 98% of people might well have valid ID, but 2% of the entire UK electorate is a very large number of people. In fact, to use the Government’s statistics, 3.5 million people do not have access to valid photo ID. It seems that one arm of the Government does not quite know what the other arm of the Government is doing. The Cabinet Office is saying that it is fine and everyone has access to ID, but the DCMS is saying that we cannot have ID requirements for access to social media sites because not everybody has ID. It seems they say one thing from one Department and another thing from another Department.
The reality is that requirements for ID discriminate against some groups more than others. Concerns have been raised from across the House and from charities and campaigning organisations that disabled people, older people, younger people and people without the spare cash to buy that passport or driving licence are going to be disenfranchised.

Karen Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no such thing as a free service? If local councils are indeed going to be providing voter ID, it will be at public expense. The £120 million that is due to be spent on that could be better spent on voter registration and boosting turnout rather than a disproportionate attempt to control the voting of a minority of people.

Cat Smith: My hon. Friend is exactly right. In fact, the Bill contains no details about how local authorities are going to roll out this so-called voter ID, which, as she points out, is not free: it will cost the taxpayer money. This is an expensive waste of taxpayers’ money trying to look for a problem to solve.
We know fine well that voter ID will be an additional barrier for voters. It will be an additional barrier even for the voters that have the relevant ID, because they have to remember to take it with them. We are all Members of Parliament—we all go out and campaign—and we know fine well that sometimes on a wet and rainy Thursday it is awfully difficult to get voters down to the polling station. We should be making sure that our elections take place on public holidays. We should be exploring the idea of weekend voting. We should be looking at ways of modernising our democracy for the 21st century. This Elections Bill does nothing to modernise and everything to put barriers up to participation. The 160 pages of this Bill were written during a global pandemic. At a time when our doctors and nurses were in our hospitals wearing bin bags because of a lack of personal protection equipment, this Government were drawing up legislation to put barriers up to democracy, wasting taxpayers’ money on expensive policies designed to benefit the Conservative party.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree that it is important not just to look at the Bill in isolation? When we add it to things such as the boundary review and the scrapping of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, those of us who are cynically minded see a plan to skew the next election.

Cat Smith: The hon. Member is absolutely right: this Bill cannot be seen in isolation. Indeed, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill is before the House currently and allows the Government to decide when an election is held. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill restricts the right to protest. We have to see the Elections Bill in the round and recognise that pieces of legislation are coming one after another. It shows that this Government are scared of transparency and scared of accountability.
Frankly, in the time of a pandemic, it is disappointing that the Government are spending time to restrict democracy and not making sure that we have the support we need for our young people to recover or that we are dealing with the crisis in adult social care. There is so much more that this Government should be getting on with doing, but instead we have this 160-page Bill that restricts democracy and rigs elections in favour of the Conservative party, and it is an absolute disgrace.
Turning to the voter ID part of the legislation, the pilots that took place in 2019 were in just 10 local authority areas in England. This is a UK-wide policy; that is not a reasonable look at the country. The type of voter ID that the Government wish to bring in was trialled in only one of those 10 areas: only in Woking has it been trialled. The Government have the idea of rolling out a policy that could disenfranchise 3.5 million people having only piloted it in Woking. They have the confidence to think it will work across the whole United Kingdom. I believe it is reckless and disenfranchising.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Cat Smith: The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has been trying to get in for some time; I will give way to him.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady; she is always extremely generous. Does she completely disregard the recommendations of the OSCE that identification at ballots is an important part of the security of the ballot? That is an internationally recommended part of the electoral process. Does she completely dismiss that recommendation?

Cat Smith: It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Member in his place, and it is always a pleasure to debate these issues with him in very many forums. The OSCE recommendations are designed to give broad brushstrokes around the global issues of democracy. It is true that some countries require ID at polling stations, but they are countries with a national ID card. We do not have a national ID card in this country. It is not part of our culture and I would certainly oppose it, were it proposed. In fact, I believe that the Prime Minister said that if he were ever asked to produce an ID card, he would eat it. I think there is probably consensus that we are not seeking a national ID card, which is why it is so surprising that this piece of legislation requires ID to exercise the basic fundamental human right of voting in a democratic country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Cat Smith: This is my final point on this, and then I will give way. There is currently a case before the Supreme Court, brought by Mr Neil Coughlan, who is challenging the legality of the pilot trials. That case is not due to be heard until 15 February next year. If the judge makes  any rulings from which we could learn something, it will be too late for this piece of legislation. I suggest to the Government that their attempts to rush this Bill through before we hear from the Supreme Court is reckless.
There is nothing in the Bill about how local authorities are meant to be administering the ID. Frankly, Ministers are living in an alternative reality, where they seem to believe that people are constantly trying to impersonate their neighbours to steal a single vote. I just think that is utterly bizarre. There have been four cases of voter impersonation fraud in the past 10 years. That is from 243 million votes cast. To put that in context, someone is more likely to be struck by lightning three times.

Steven Baker: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to successful prosecutions, but one of the problems is that people are not prosecuted when they ought to be. I made a speech on 19 December 2019—I am sure she has pored over every word of it—in which I pointed out that election officials in Wycombe are not holding people to account even they are walking into a polling station repeatedly in comedy disguises, doing things like changing their glasses, changing their hat, putting sunglasses on, wearing a different coat or whatever. They are not being prosecuted, and that is the problem.

Cat Smith: It appears to be all happening in Wycombe. I believe that I was there for the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I know he takes a keen interest in this issue, so he will know well that where there are widespread examples of voter personation, which is a serious crime, it should be tackled. That is why the law is different in Northern Ireland, where there was a culture of organised crime and gangs stealing hundreds of votes through personation at polling stations; that was legislated against. There is no evidence of that in England, Scotland and Wales, so legislation is not needed. Where there are examples of voter personation, it is right and proper that it is tackled, but as there are not such examples, the Bill is just legislation that puts up another barrier to legitimate voters’ ability to vote.
In the voter trial areas, which were in just a handful of local authorities, we know that 700 voters at local elections who were turned away did not return to use their vote. Given the tiny numbers of accusations of voter personation and the huge numbers of people who were turned away because they did not have ID, we know that the Bill will disproportionately disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Anthony Browne: Thank you for your generosity and time. You said clearly that you think the proposal to introduce voter ID is an attempt to rig elections. Is that why the Labour party requires voter ID to vote in local party gatherings and has a long history of that? Have you attempted to rig your own elections?

Rosie Winterton: Order. Really, the hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he should not use the word “you”, which refers to me.

Anthony Browne: I apologise.

Cat Smith: I reassure the hon. Member that I have been a member of the Labour party since 2004—a relatively active member—and I have never been asked to show ID at any meetings. Even if I was asked, I would say that political parties are membership organisations—we know that members are often expelled from political parties, as it often hits the headlines—but the right to vote in elections in a democracy is a fundamental human right. That is slightly different from being a member of a political party.

Wera Hobhouse: Is the hon. Member as concerned as I am that comparisons from other countries show that voter ID requirements disproportionately affect voters from ethnic minority backgrounds?

Cat Smith: The hon. Lady makes a good point and is absolutely right. Studies from the United States show that voters from black and Hispanic backgrounds are disproportionally affected by requirements to show ID. Indeed, there are many similarities between the repressive voter suppression laws in some US states and this legislation. I believe that in Texas a voter can show their gun licence to vote but they cannot show a student ID, and in the Bill student ID is not a valid piece of identification but a bus pass is valid. It seems that one type of ID is more valuable than another, and it seems that the type of person likely to hold that ID is very much considered when drawing up the acceptable list.
I turn to changes to the regulation of the Electoral Commission, which seem to be political interference in the regulation of our elections. There is no doubt that the Government’s setting the strategy and policy document for the Electoral Commission is a dangerous precedent. When we look to similar democracies such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, we see a complete separation between Government and their electoral commissions. Indeed, at this morning’s meeting of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Helen Mountfield, QC, a barrister at Matrix chambers, said that the Bill arguably breaches international law and that the removal of the Electoral Commission’s independence is “legally problematic” and breaches the UK’s constitutional standards. To be blunt, we would not allow, say, an arsonist to decide the fire brigade’s strategy and policy direction, and we certainly would not let shoplifters decide the police’s strategy and policy direction. It therefore seems a little bit odd that when it comes to regulating political parties, some parties—those in government—seem to have an awful lot of power to decide the strategy and policy direction of that.
On the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, this is a Committee that already has an in-built Government majority, and the legislation seeks to strengthen and increase that majority. If we saw this happening in any other democracy around the world, I do not think we would sit back and say that that looked okay. It does not look okay—it does not pass the sniff test—and that bit needs to be changed.
The Bill is riddled with cheap attempts to dodge scrutiny. That seems to be the theme that runs throughout this legislation. In a free and open democracy, democratically elected Governments are scrutinised by opposition parties and civil society. That is part of what makes democracy healthy, and the freedom for civil society to do this and to hold those in power to account  is the sign of a strong democracy. This Bill is an attack on some parties more than others, and I would say that the attack on the trade unions—the 6 million people who are members of trade unions—is an attack on all working people’s rights to campaign for fair pay at work and health and safety in the workplace, and it is actually an attack on the people who have got our country through the pandemic.

Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because this piece of legislation is alienating civil society. In particular, charities are really concerned about the measures in this Bill because it is going to have a chilling effect on their campaigning, but most of all push them into having bureaucratic reporting processes. Does she agree that these parts of the Bill need removing?

Cat Smith: I agree entirely. Trade unions are already incredibly heavily regulated, and charities will feel stifled and gagged by the legislation before us.
Finally, I want to turn to what the Government are calling the so-called votes for life section of the Bill. Indeed, if we wish to expand the franchise, I would very much support the Government if they wanted to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. However, it appears that, at one fell swoop, we seem to be advancing more rights to people who do not live in this country than to people who do live in this country.
There is nothing in this Bill that actually helps overseas electors get their ballots back in time. One of the complaints I have heard most from overseas electors is that they do not get their ballot papers in time and cannot get them returned to the UK in time for their votes to count. There is nothing in this Bill that explores the many different options of using modern technology to speed up this process to make sure that overseas electors currently registered under current legislation can actually use their vote. Instead, the motivation behind the change to remove the 15-year limit is about creating a loophole in donation law, and it will give rich Conservative donors unlimited access to our democracy in allowing them to bankroll the Tory party.
I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill, and I cannot wait to get into the detail of the clauses in Committee with the Minister, but I shall finish by saying that I do believe this Bill tarnishes our democracy. It is an opportunity missed—an opportunity to modernise our electoral law, put it into one piece of legislation and make it fit for the 21sst century, and to use £120 million to encourage voter participation instead of putting up barriers. The Labour party will therefore be voting against this legislation today. I hope that all Members in this House will consider the implications for their own constituents, and I commend the reasoned amendment in my name and the names of others.

David Davis: Let me start with a comment relating to the question the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) raised about the duty on Governments to be more than fair when they are dealing with electoral legislation. Governments should not, even by accident, put in place electoral legislation that advantages themselves over their opponents. However, I do have to say to her that the most egregious example of that was under  Gordon Brown, and the more sanctimonious the Minister, the worse the outcome sometimes. It is incumbent on us to make sure that we do not even accidentally disadvantage the other side in elections.
I want to focus on just one thing today, which is the issue of voter ID. The very fact that the phrase has “ID” in it will tell everybody I am against it—they understand that—but it is not for the conventional reasons. This is not an ID system with a database behind it; it is just an ID card that people have to present. Our country has over the centuries been different from other countries: we do not allow our policemen to come up to people and say, “Can I see your papers, please?” It is important to maintain that distinction between the citizen and the state, particularly when we are talking about the fundamental rights of the individual, such as the right to vote.
The Government quite rightly claim that voter fraud undermines our democracy—the battle on that has already occurred to some extent—but the primary voter fraud has been in postal votes, not in personation. We all know how it has occurred in communities up and down the country, and we should deal with it ruthlessly and prosecute. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who used to serve with me as a Minister in the Brexit Department, that the answer to his question is that the prosecution should happen in his constituency. That is what should happen, but let us be clear: since 2014 only three prosecutions have occurred. There have been 30-odd allegations but only three prosecutions, and that is out of many tens of millions of votes cast. So there have been 30-odd allegations, three prosecutions and zero election outcomes influenced; that is what we must bear in mind.
On the back of that, Ministers will want to introduce mandatory voter identification. It is an illiberal solution—unsurprisingly coming from the Cabinet Office, as that is what it always thinks up—in search of a non-existent problem. [Interruption.] I have at least some support on my side of the House.
The Government’s own research found that those with disabilities, the unemployed, people without qualifications, people who had never voted before and ethnic minorities were all less likely to hold any form of ID; those are the sorts of groups we are talking about. In two groups—the over-85s and the disabled—between 5% and 10% had no photo ID. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned that the introduction of voter ID may have a discriminatory effect on those groups and other protected groups, and the trial referred to by the Liberal spokesman, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), when 700 people did not vote as a result of photo ID being required, took place in a set of areas where the numbers of people in these groups were very low; it was basically the southern English test area, not central Bradford or wherever.
This is very serious. We are talking about quite a significant fraction of our population. There are 2 million people in the groups I have described who will have to be met by some ID system, and that must be balanced against three voter convictions. That is the problem we are facing.

Craig Mackinlay: Has my right hon. Friend looked at schedule 1, which contains a very broad list of valid means of identification? I would be  very surprised if anybody in the country today did not have one of them, and my right hon. Friend also knows that there is the provision of free ID from the local council.

David Davis: The point I would make is that I am quoting from Government research. I did not do this research; it is Government research. By the way, since my hon. Friend draws me to Government research, Lord Pickles, a real old pal of mine, did a study on this. I have read it and, to summarise, the conclusion was, “I can find no evidence of personation but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, and of course even if it isn’t happening now it might well happen in the future.” It is the precautionary principle gone mad in the centre of our constitution.
The Government answer, as we have heard several times, is free photographic ID. Nevertheless, the Government’s own research again found that about 42% of people without the ID would not take it up. That is really very serious. These groups are going to be disenfranchised because they do not take it up, and they will turn up at the polling station and find that they are unable to vote. This is in pursuit of three convictions.

Stephen Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech thoroughly destroying the Government case for voter ID. Would he care to hazard a guess as to why the Government are pursuing this policy?

David Davis: This is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman. I think that the Government are trying to do their best. I do not think that this is a deliberate action, but I think that the pressure on the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but listen: I lived through a Labour Government deliberately gerrymandering the system, frankly, so I do not want to take any lectures on that. I think that the Government are trying to do their best. They have the wrong idea in pursuit of a problem that does not exist, but they are nevertheless trying to do their best. But there is a greater—

Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no evidence of gerrymandering. That is outrageous.

Rosie Winterton: That is not a point of order. I really do not want the debate interrupted by points of order that are actually points of debate.

David Davis: I will take another day to give lectures on points of order.
The simple truth is that there is a greater responsibility on the Government than on anyone else to do the right thing and to avoid errors working to their own advantage. That is what I am arguing here today. This voter ID scheme is an illiberal idea in pursuit of a non-existent problem, and that is what we need to address. We  need to get rid of it, and that is what I will seek to  do on Report.

Brendan O'Hara: Fundamentally, this Bill is an attack on democracy that will disenfranchise millions, entrench more powers with the Executive, and remove the power of the Electoral Commission to scrutinise. Like many others, I urge Members not to look at the Bill in isolation but to view it in the wider context of the other legislation going through the House at the moment with respect to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, citizens’ right to peacefully protest, and even the proposed privatisation of Channel 4. That paints a very bleak picture for our democracy.
When the Bill first appeared, in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, the headline-grabbing proposal was voter ID, whereby photographic evidence would be required before an individual was allowed to cast their vote. However, as we have heard from many others this afternoon, voter fraud at polling stations barely reaches the height of minuscule, and the evidence that we have heard from those on the Government Benches has been based on personal anecdote. We have to ask: what is the problem they are seeking to solve?
Seeing a Government introduce such radical policy changes without a shred of evidence to support those changes sets alarm bells ringing among those of us who believe that every Government should be trying to remove barriers that prevent participation in the democratic process, rather than raising them.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about not taking the Bill in isolation and looking at the cumulative effect. Does he agree that it is definitive of a Government that have lost any confidence in their ability to outrun their outrageous false claims, their untruths and their broken promises that they have to bring this measure in to try to gerrymander the system?

Brendan O'Hara: I could not agree more, and I will elaborate on that as I go through my speech.
In all the debate and discussion that have followed the Queen’s Speech in May, the Government have had ample opportunity to produce the evidence that these proposals are a proportionate measure to deal with an identified problem, and they have not. The reason they have not is that there is absolutely no evidence for them to produce. As one leading, albeit unelected, Scottish politician recently said:
“They can’t cite any evidence of it because I don’t think there’s any evidence to cite. In terms of this particular part of the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s total bollocks, and I think it’s trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and that makes it politics as performance.”
It is not often that I agree with the former Scottish Conservative leader, Baroness Davidson, or whatever her title is at the moment, but on this occasion she was absolutely spot on.
In the absence of any evidence that voter ID is the answer to an identified problem, we can only conclude that, for the Conservative party, the problem is not folk turning up at polling stations without photographic ID,  but that certain folk turn up at polling stations  at all.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)? Does he disregard the recommendations of the OSCE?

Brendan O'Hara: I do not regard any findings of the OSCE, but what I think is important in this place, looking at UK-wide elections, is that we have a measure that works for United Kingdom general elections, and this is one that absolutely does not. The right hon. Gentleman says we should be reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. There is a debate to be had, but the imposition of this kind of voter ID now is absolute nonsense and there is no evidence whatever to justify it. This is, therefore, actually a ploy to stop people going to the polling station in the first place. I believe it really is as crude as that. The Government plan appears to  have been to conjure up a demon, convince people  that that demon is posing a threat to them, and then allow themselves to introduce draconian and totally disproportionate measures to slay the demon they have just invented.
The fatal flaw in that argument is that there never was a demon. No matter how the Government have tried to spin this, people know that there never was a demon and that there is nothing to see. Now, the United Kingdom Government stand accused of a sleazy attempt to gerrymander the register for their own electoral gain.

Tom Randall: In his judgment on the election in Tower Hamlets, Richard Mawrey QC said there was an appreciable amount of personation by false registration in Tower Hamlets. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has read that judgment.

Brendan O'Hara: I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman on the Tower Hamlets issue, which I believe went back to 2014, that to change an entire voting system on what went on in one particular London borough—the anecdotal evidence I have heard is that it was more to do with postal voting than personation. This measure is to do with personation, which has been proven not to be a problem.
This is an utterly reprehensible proposal that would be more at home in Donald Trump’s Republican party than in the United Kingdom. What is more important and more chilling is the brazen way in which the Government are doing it. They seem not to care. We always know it will not be the well-heeled and the affluent middle classes who will struggle to produce a passport, or a driving licence. We know and they know it will be the young, the poor, the marginalised and the minority communities who do not have a passport or do not drive, who will struggle to manage to collect a voter ID card. They will be affected by this registration.
The Government know that there are already between 2 million and 3 million people who do not have that ID. They also know that there are about 9 million people not registered. I think they should be spending an awful lot more time getting people on to the register than organising to take people off that register.

Robert Goodwill: Would these be the same young people who have to show photo ID to get into a bar, a nightclub or a pub every Saturday night?

Brendan O'Hara: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce this debate to that level, he is perfectly welcome so to do, but this is about a fundamental right for people to exercise their democratic right to vote. I urge him to take it a bit more seriously.
Yet again, this highlights the differences between what is happening here and what is happening in Scotland. If ever there was a reason why we need our independence, it is to get away from draconian legislation such as this. In May, when the Scottish National party won an unprecedented fourth term, we did it with a record number of people turning out to vote in a Scottish Parliament election. That does not happen by accident; that was by design. The SNP Government led the way by extending the franchise to all 16 and 17 year olds and, more recently, by allowing all eligible refugees in Scotland and those foreign nationals with settled status the right to vote. It is because we extended that franchise that we now have a thriving, healthy and robust democracy in Scotland. It is telling that, as Scotland, and indeed Wales, extend that franchise, this place seeks to do the exact opposite.
Over the summer, we learned that the Bill goes far beyond plans for voter ID. If it is passed, the Government will assume powers over the running and scrutiny of all future elections. The Bill reveals plans to strip the Electoral Commission of its powers and the independence it enjoys at the moment, and put it directly under the control of the Government, forcing it to conform to a strategy and policy statement which will be written by the Government. This means that the Government—the Executive—will be giving political direction to the organisation whose job it is to independently scrutinise and adjudicate on the fairness of elections. At a time when its powers should be extended, this Government are stripping the Electoral Commission of its powers and making scrutiny far more difficult.

Alan Brown: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. On extending the Electoral Commission’s powers, it has previously said that it does not have enough powers to keep the major parties in check and that overspending and breaches of electoral law have become business as usual, because it cannot fine them enough. Is this not all about taking further control rather than accepting open elections?

Brendan O'Hara: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are heading down a dangerous road and I urge Government Members to think carefully before proceeding.
One would have hoped that, at a time when democracies across the world are under threat from the influence of hostile actors, Governments could have taken this opportunity to introduce legislation to tackle those shadowy groups—those unincorporated associations—with anonymous sources of cash that are seeking to influence UK politics. However, given that openDemocracy recently revealed that since 2019, the Conservative party has accepted £2.5 million in donations from these shadowy groups, it was never going to be the anonymous, deep-pocketed bankrollers of the Conservative party who would be targeted in the Bill.
This Bill was always designed to hit the poor, the disadvantaged, the trade unions, the charity campaigners and civic society activists, because it will be the Secretary of State who will get to unilaterally decide who can campaign, what they can campaign on, when they can  campaign, how much money they can raise and what they can spend those funds on. At a stroke, a Government Minister could ban a whole section of civic society, including trade unions and charities, from engaging in elections and campaigning or donating. It is fundamentally anti-democratic and people should be outraged by it. But, of course, if those people are unhappy and want to take to the streets to protest, this Government are already planning to block off that avenue to them.

David Morris: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. Charities are supposed to be apolitical—how do you explain that?

Rosie Winterton: Order. I say again that hon. Members really should not use the word “you”; otherwise, it becomes a bit of a conversation down there and we feel kind of left out.

Brendan O'Hara: A charity has the right to advocate on behalf of its members and the people it represents. A charity must have the leeway and the bandwidth to advocate. To block that off screams of the anti-democratic road that this Government are determined to go down.
What we have here is a Government who are allergic to criticism, who are terrified of scrutiny and who are determined to give themselves, through this and other pieces of legislation, the powers to silence their critics. They want to prevent public displays of dissent and weaken their political opposition while, at the same time, entrenching the advantage that they already have, all at the expense of democracy.

Geraint Davies: Aneurin Bevan famously said that in the struggle between poverty and property, when poverty rises, property will attack democracy. Is this not what we are seeing in terms of voter suppression, getting rid of the right to peaceful protest, and attacking the judiciary and our fundamental democratic rights?

Brendan O'Hara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we are heading down a very, very dangerous road. The public have to be made aware of that and Government Members have to be aware of where this could lead.
We would not take this in any other walk of life. If this was a casino, we would demand that it be shut down and the owners arrested for loading the dice, marking the cards and allowing the dealers to have aces hidden up their sleeves. If this was a football match, there is no way that we would accept the home team manager being the referee and the assistant manager sitting up in the VAR box. Why, then, are we being asked to accept this? Why are we being asked to let this Government play fast and loose with something as fragile and as precious as our democracy—something that so many have done so much to defend? Why are we being asked to let this Government undermine those independent institutions that are specifically there to scrutinise our elections and preserve the public’s trust in a free and fair electoral system?
This is little more than a grubby attempt to gain electoral advantage. Why are we being asked to potentially disenfranchise millions of poor people and disadvantaged  communities? Why are we being asked to accept that a Government Minister can unilaterally decide who can or cannot campaign for what they passionately believe in? Why are we being asked to turn a blind eye to those incredibly rich and powerful bodies that seek to buy their way to influence and power in the UK Government?
Our democracy, as I said, is under sustained attack. The arithmetic of this place means that the only people who can prevent this anti-democratic slide are Conservative Members. If they decide to fall meekly in line with what the Government say and nod this truly, thoroughly anti-democratic legislation through, I fear that history will judge them as those who facilitated one of the darkest days for democracy in the history of this  country.

William Wragg: As ever, I will seek to calm the House, if I can, as I perambulate around a few of the issues that the Bill presents. I suggest to the Minister, as an early judgment, that it is perhaps a curate’s egg of a Bill. I will explain why I have come to that assessment, but we must understand at the outset why these matters are important. They are important to protect everybody—democracy itself in its entirety, clearly, but also candidates, agents and volunteers for all political parties who are actors in our great democratic process—and to give due regard to those who ultimately deserve consideration: the voters.
Having listened to the debate so far, I think we need to hit two issues on the head. I suggest gently that it is slightly anachronistic to compare democracy in this country with the events that we saw after the US presidential election. To those who would have us believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with our system, I suggest that they could be accused of suffering from Gerald Ratner syndrome, whereby they completely undermine what they wish to improve.
It is a shame that the Bill was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which might have ironed out issues that have caused a degree of contention. Indeed, it could be suggested that the Bill would have benefited from consideration beforehand by a Speaker’s Commission, which is a cross-party entity—none of us has the monopoly on virtue when it comes to elections or matters pertaining to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said several interesting things about ID. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said: notwithstanding the substantial list in schedule 1 of acceptable forms of ID, there is work to be done.
May I briefly mention the Speaker’s Committee? I am a member by virtue of chairing the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, and for no other reason. I agree that the Speaker’s Committee would benefit from having no majority from a particular party. I see colleagues who are members of it frowning at me, but I simply say that I would be willing to sacrifice myself if we needed to remove a Conservative member. I do not wish to take away from the importance of the Committee’s work, but if it were necessary for me to discharge that heavy burden on to somebody else, I might well do so. I do not want to cause even more offence to Members on the Treasury  Bench, as I do occasionally, but I do ask whether it is appropriate to have two Ministers of the Crown as members of the Committee. I think that there is some work to be done; perhaps we will come back to the matter on Report.
On the vexed subject of the Electoral Commission, it is fair to say that opinion is mixed, but the commission is ultimately a regulator—perhaps the most sensitive regulator, because it regulates what we, and those at other levels of representation, do as candidates. o I simply say that we should tread carefully, perhaps recognise some of the work that has been done recently, welcome the new chair of the organisation, and judge it in the years to come.
I appreciate that many other Members wish to speak this afternoon, so with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

Abena Oppong-Asare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), and to speak in the debate.
I want first to discuss clause 1, and the Government’s ill thought out and extremely damaging proposal to require photo ID at polling stations. There is clear and resounding evidence that voting in this country is already safe and secure. Putting these additional barriers in the way of people exercising their right to vote will only weaken our democracy and further erode our trust in the political system, which is already quite weak.
Of course, this proposal will have a greater impact on some groups than on others. Several Members have drawn attention to that, and I want to echo some of their comments in outlining which groups will be most affected. Young people are likely to be impacted, and constituents of mine such as 16-year old Elliot have contacted me with concerns about the Bill suppressing youth engagement in politics. I have been doing quite a lot of work in my constituency in trying to enable young people to get politically engaged. Another barrier will affect older people, who may struggle to access the ID that they will now need. A number of Members, especially Conservative Members, have said that it is not a particular barrier, but I know that many people who have voted throughout their lives, in many cases for the Conservative party, will be disenfranchised.
A 91-year-old constituent wrote to me recently. He told me that he had just given up his driving licence because he is now housebound. Asking him to apply for a new form of ID, in my view, is unreasonable and ludicrous. Another constituent with multiple disabilities also contacted me. That constituent has never had a passport or a driving licence, and is extremely concerned, fearing that the process of application for a new form of ID will be difficult to complete.
I should like the Minister to clarify some points. What assessment have the Government made of how the new law will affect people with disabilities? The Bill provides extremely limited information about the new voter card: there is nothing about the application process, nothing about deadlines, nothing about what documents will be required, and nothing about how long the card will be valid for. The Bill simply says that this vital information will be set in out in future regulations, but as the Electoral Commission has said, we need to have  it during the Bill’s passage, and unfortunately it is not there. Will the Government commit to providing full information on voter ID before the Bill moves to its next stages?
Earlier this year, 17 leading civil society organisations called on the Government to think again about requiring photo ID at polling stations. They included Stonewall, the Electoral Reform Society, Operation Black Vote, My Life My Say, and Silver Voices. It is not just the Labour party that is saying this. I urge the Government to listen to the growing consensus from across the political divide, and from impartial charities and representative groups, and to drop this terrible idea.
Let me now turn briefly to clause 25, on joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties. It is of course right for us to have a robust system of electoral finance monitoring and controls, but I have concerns about how the Bill could restrict legitimate campaigning by trade unions and other organisations. I echo the comments of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). Trade unions are democratic membership organisations that are already highly regulated when it comes to the financing of campaigns, and the Labour Party is proud of its intrinsic link with the trade union movement. This Bill redefines campaign activity that is currently classified as party spending as joint campaigning, potentially making unions liable for substantial expenditure by the party. That is both unfair and illogical. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has recently stated:
“When considering calls for greater regulation on non-party campaigning it is important to be mindful of the role of non-party campaigning in the broader ecosystem of democracy and pre-election debate.”
Trade unions must be able to engage in the democratic process, campaign on behalf of their members and support political parties without onerous regulations, which will not increase transparency or make election spending fairer. I urge the Government to reconsider how these clauses will operate, and to bring forward revised proposals during the passage of the Bill.

Craig Mackinlay: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to be higher up the batting order. I want to highlight to the House that I serve on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and that I was acquitted at Southwark Crown court of an electoral law offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 on 9 January 2019, as Members will be aware. There are three minor issues that I would like to talk about this afternoon, as well as one major one and one potential omission from the Bill. I hope that some of these points can be addressed as the Bill makes further progress.
There has been much huffing and puffing on voter identification this afternoon, as there always is on this topic. It is perceived by some as a means to restrict voting, but I do not believe a word of that. We have ID with us at most times of the day, when we want to collect a parcel or indulge in age-related activities such as going to the pub. I do not think there are many in this House who campaign as actively as I do for civil liberties, and I see absolutely no conflict in this legislation.

Robert Goodwill: Has my hon. Friend encountered a situation in which a voter has lost their polling card and, when they are told that they can still go to the polling station, they are astounded that they do not need any form of ID? In fact, many people who lose their polling cards are nervous about going to vote at all, so having ID might encourage people in that situation to go and vote.

Craig Mackinlay: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting observation. We have all heard this on the doorstep. When people say, “Oh, I’ve lost my card”, we say to them, “Don’t worry, just go!” So yes, perversely the ID card could actually increase turnout, which is the converse of what some people say.
The mischief that clause 1 is intended to address is that of personation. People claim that it is non-existent, and I know that very few cases go to court, but I disagree with those who say it is not taking place. I will not highlight to the House how easy it is and how it has undoubtedly happened in many constituencies. Clause 2, on postal voting, amends paragraph 3 of schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000, on absent voting in Great Britain. This will restrict the right to a perpetual postal vote to three years, which is good common sense.
Clause 3 brings in a new offence of handling postal votes. Again, a great idea, but in practical terms it is difficult to know how it could really be effective. Let us hope that the threat of prosecution will be enough to bring people away from the appalling activity that, in parts of the country, we would have to call postal vote farming. There have been some convictions for this, which is all to the good. However, I think there is a wider debate to be had on whether postal votes serve the good of the democratic process.
In some local authorities, postal votes arrive two weeks before voting day. I have often wondered how many of those who vote early, who might be floating voters, find themselves thinking in the last few days when the election is getting exciting, “D’you know what? I’ve changed my mind! I wish I’d waited till the end.” That is a problem as we get an increasing number of postal voters. It is almost like that old saying, “For you the war is over”, because they are no longer in the election process.
The increase in postal votes was implemented by the Labour party amid fears that the number of people engaging in elections was going down. I remember, because I am of a certain age, when people had to have a good reason to get a postal vote, such as being on holiday or working away, or being infirm or ill. A debate needs to be had as to whether that was a better process. I value elections and the process of going to a booth, and I am not convinced that the widening of the postal vote mandate that we have seen over the years has not just widened the risk of fraud, harvesting and coercion, away from the reasonable security of the polling station—I have good, robust feelings about the security of the polling station.
On overseas electors, as long as a person is within the net of UK tax they should have the right to vote. Obviously, a person who goes abroad to work for a few years will lose the annual tax charge, but to get rid of their domicile takes a lot longer. A person can be   within the net of inheritance tax for a very long time, and it is sometimes difficult to get rid of it completely. I am very comfortable with where this is going.
The change in the Bill that is relevant to me, of course, follows the result of my 11-week trial at Southwark Crown court behind glass, which concluded in acquittal on 9 January 2019. I did not enter the House as the MP for South Thanet to have a lengthy trial based on very abstract and ambiguous legislation. The issue at stake was the construction of section 90ZA of the Representation of the People Act 1983, relating to the meaning of “election expenses,” and section 90C of the same Act, relating to accounting for discounted or free goods and services and the requirement, or not, for a candidate or agent to give assent and proper authorisation for expenditure in order for it to be a valid election expense.

Steven Baker: That sounds like a very complex matter, and I am sure my hon. Friend deserves an extra minute to explain it to us properly. I am grateful that he is here to do so.

Craig Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance.
The matter was tested at the Court of Appeal in front of no less than the Lord Chief Justice, who ruled in summary that authorisation by the candidate or agent is a key feature of an election expense. The Electoral Commission—I make no comment as to its motivation—was dissatisfied with the outcome at the Court of Appeal and took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in an entirely contrary way, that spending could be construed as an election expense without receiving formal authorisation or proper deemed authorisation if it is of assistance to that candidate.
Two of the highest courts in the land—one said this and one said that. How on earth is a candidate or agent meant to make any sense of such legislation? I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to my contributions in the House on this matter and for listening to the private Member’s Bill that I introduced some years ago to amend the 1983 Act appropriately so that proper authorisation has to be given. I now see those words in the Bill almost in their entirety. In clause 16, proposed new section 90C(1A) of the 1983 Act requires clear direction, authorisation or encouragement by the candidate or their agent for an election expense to be so. Thank God we have some clarity.
I would not want to see anybody in this House, friend or foe, go through what I went through. It was not fair, because we had ambiguous legislation. Finally we have a power in this Bill that means we will protect each other for the right reasons. Whether or not we like someone’s politics, it will apply to everybody.

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying it is reasonable for a political party to bus in hundreds of workers and put them in hotels, so long as the agent does not know or authorise it? Is he saying that is a legitimate—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am afraid the time of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has come to an end, but I will give him 30 seconds.

Craig Mackinlay: I thank the House for its forbearance during those troubled years, and I hope Members will support at least that part of the Bill.

Ben Lake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), in his excellent speech, made reference to the way in which the Scottish electoral system is becoming far more inclusive by expanding the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Of course, similar efforts are under way in Wales, where the most recent Senedd election saw the franchise extended to all those over the age of 16 with residency rights. As discussions in Wales turn to consideration of the size of the Senedd and further reform of the electoral system, we can say that Welsh democracy is becoming more inclusive, at a time when perhaps the situation at UK level is to the contrary.
Some of the proposals in this Bill are to be commended, including the new sanction on intimidation of candidates and of voters. However, as has been discussed a lot this afternoon, the Bill does introduce a new barrier to democratic participation. As others have eloquently argued this afternoon, the introduction of voter ID requirements is baffling, as it appears to be the Government’s attempt to address a non-existent problem. I appreciate that we will not have agreement on this issue this afternoon, but it is worth reiterating that in 2019 there were 33 cases of polling station irregularities, in an election where more than 32 million ballots were cast. The Electoral Commission’s electoral fraud data details that there have been three convictions for in-person personation since 2014. I understand that we are not going to be able to agree on this point, but surely the Government will consider their own evidence, and the Cabinet Office’s own research found that 27% of those without photo ID were less likely to vote if photo ID was required. When the Minister sums up, it would be good to hear exactly what the Government’s plan is to try to encourage voting among people who have expressed to the Government that they are less likely to vote if photo ID is required.
Another question that arises from the Bill is whether the Government have considered the implications of some of the measures on devolved elections and constitutional arrangements. An example that comes to mind is this year’s Welsh election, where the Senedd general election was held on the same day as the police and crime commissioner elections. If that were to occur again, voters would be required to show photographic ID in order to vote in the PCC election but would not be required to do so for the Senedd election. That exemplifies some of the complexity that the Law Commission identified in its report and the recommendations for electoral laws to be rationalised. My question simply is: have the Government assessed how this would impact turnout and participation in devolved elections? Have there been discussions with the Welsh Government and the Senedd on that point?
Other worrying aspects of the Bill are some of the changes relating to the operation of the Electoral Commission and the strategic priorities of that body, which have been mentioned this afternoon. As the Electoral Commission is funded by, and is formally accountable to, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, as well as to the UK Parliament, the UK Government  must make it clear that the proposed strategy and policy statement outlined in clause 12 and the related development and approval processes will not undermine the very important relationships that the commission has with the devolved Parliaments. Indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has called for that.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I will just say that an opportunity has been missed to consolidate and modernise electoral law, which both the Law Commission and, more recently, the Committee on Standards in Public Life have called for. I hope that some of their recommendations can be incorporated into the Bill in future stages.

Roger Gale: I suppose I have been in this place long enough not to be surprised by anything that happens in this Chamber, but I have to say that I am astonished by the level of synthetic outrage that has been generated by part 1 of this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), an old friend, gave the game away when he said that it has the word “ID” in it. For him, anything with “ID” in it is a blue rag to a bull. All I can say, as someone who has been privileged to be an international observer of elections on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, is that ID is common practice around the civilised world. It is not a panacea and it is not going to solve all ills, but it is a useful tool in the prevention of fraud. I think I am right in saying—my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that ID has been used in Northern Ireland elections since 2003. If that is so and it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it is surely good enough for the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom.
My main purpose, in taking the Floor for just a few moments, is to say thank you to my hon. Friend the Minister for delivering something for which many of us have been campaigning for some time: the extension of the right to vote, in perpetuity, for expats. I am particularly grateful for part 2 of the Bill and clause 10, which ought to be known as Harry’s clause. Harry Shindler is 100 years old. He is the oldest living member of the Labour party. Harry and I have worked together on this project, with others, for a number of years. It will be a joy to his heart to be able, at the age of 102 or 103, to vote in a general election. Harry could have taken Italian citizenship—he fought at Anzio, came back to the United Kingdom and later retired to Italy—but, proudly British, he refused to become Italian to be able to vote.
At the next general election, Harry will be able to vote. That is one of two issues that expats want to be delivered. We are delivering on one; I hope that Harry and I will both also live to see the day when we deliver on the second, which is the extension of expat pensions in perpetuity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. To make her maiden speech, I call Sarah Green.

Sarah Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a true privilege to stand here today, among these green Benches, as the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
It should be said that, like so many constituencies, Chesham and Amersham is more than just two towns. We are a collection of proud and vibrant communities, going from the Chalfonts in the south through to the Lees in the north, taking in the Missendens, the Kingshills and so many other villages along the way. Soaring above it all are the magnificent red kites.
In representing the constituency of Chesham and Amersham, I follow the late Dame Cheryl Gillan. I know that many Members and former Members alike mourn her loss. Please let me take this moment to give my condolences to the many colleagues, friends and family members who all sorely miss her. I can only say that I intend to carry on her tradition of speaking truth to power and standing up for my constituents.
Dame Cheryl and I proudly share a Welsh heritage, and it so happens that Chesham and Amersham is something of a destination for Welsh émigrés. One of our most famous late residents was Roald Dahl. If people look closely enough around Great Missenden, they will find, hidden in plain sight, little details and clues to locations from his stories—stories that, like many in this place, I grew up reading.
The inspiration for Matilda’s library is still used by local people today. Danny’s dad’s petrol pump from “Danny, the Champion of the World” can be found, too—along with those pheasants that Danny and his father so loved. Crown House, otherwise known as Sophie’s orphanage from “The BFG”, still stands. I am, however, still on the hunt for a giant peach and a big chocolate factory.
At the heart of the inspiration for many of those wonderful stories is the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and our woodlands in particular. There is therefore a grim and unwelcome parallel between the story of “Fantastic Mr Fox” and the scene that greets people there today. The damage that Boggis and Bunce and Bean’s diggers wrought as they tore up the land while hunting that Mr Fox echoes the current destruction now taking place thanks to the works around High Speed 2. It is bad enough to watch it from street level, but once you get up and above the works and see the full scale of it, it is devastating. What you see makes your heart sink, where before the views could make your heart sing.
Something else that makes your heart sink are the roads around Buckinghamshire. I call them roads, but they are more like an assault course for unsuspecting drivers. The shocking state of our roads is something that my constituents are desperate to see fixed, but sadly this Government are more interested in fixing a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of mass voter fraud in this country and yet, with this Bill, the Government want to introduce voter ID at elections. Why? This Bill will result in countless voters being turned away at the polling booth for no good reason. We should be encouraging more people to participate in elections, not introducing barriers to voting. Far from strengthening our democracy, this Bill makes it harder for people to vote and undermines our independent elections watchdog. Like all Members here, I did not enjoy the universal support of every voter, but everyone should be able to cast their vote unimpeded.
It goes without saying, however, that, no matter how any one person voted, every constituent in Chesham and Amersham will be listened to, will be heard and their interests represented in this place by me, and I greatly look forward to working with colleagues across this House.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her maiden speech. I call Maria Miller.

Maria Miller: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo your congratulations to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on not only an excellent maiden speech, but a very gracious one as well? We on the Conservative Benches really appreciate the tribute that she paid to our late colleague. I felt like I was getting to know her constituency all over again after a number of visits there during the by-election. Every village appeared to be a film set and actually was. I did not realise that it was the most photographed area of the country and it is extremely beautiful. The hon. Lady steps into big shoes left by our friend, Dame Cheryl, and I wish her very well in the work that I know she will be doing to well represent the constituents of Chesham and Amersham and, by the sounds of it, to continue the tradition of being a very strong advocate not of HS2, but of her constituents.
Our democracy, like others, is a very fragile thing. Elections are pivotal in the democratic process and I really applaud the Government, but particularly my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, for all that they are doing to put democracy first in their agenda. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said quite rightly that the Government have greater responsibility than anybody to ensure that the measures that are put in place are impartial—that they will not be favouring one side or the other. I do not agree with the points that he makes on voter ID; I think that the Bill is absolutely right. Ministers will have to do a great job of work in explaining voter ID to the voters well in advance of any election and I know that they will put that as a priority.
I just want to focus on two measures in the Bill and two measures that are not in the Bill. I would like to highlight my support for two measures, and the first is around the intimidation of candidates. The Bill introduces a new and very welcome electoral sanction to protect those seeking to be elected from abuse either in person or online. The vast majority of people who have stood for election have experienced some sort of aggressive behaviour and this is having a deleterious impact on certain groups. The Minister will know from our conversations the concerns that I have about the impacts on women putting themselves forward for election. We know from research that two out of three women in the UK said that their fear of abuse or harassment was a reason for not pursuing a career in politics. That is not good enough. In a democracy where we are strong because of our representative nature we have to tackle these things head on, so thank you to the Ministers for championing this new sanction in the Bill.
Secondly, there is the accessibility of polls. We sort of take it for granted that everybody can get to vote, but when we look at the evidence in the legislation, we see  that the fact that it covers only tactile voting devices is way out of date, so, again, I applaud the Ministers for their tenacity in making sure that the requirement on returning officers is far broader than that; they should be commended for that.
Let me turn to the two issues that I hope I might turn the Ministers’ eyes to as the Bill proceeds through its various stages. The first will come as no surprise to them: it is the length of elections. [Interruption.] There is quite a lot of support for that on these Benches. The Bill is silent on the length of general election campaigns. When I was elected, election campaigns were 25 days. When many colleagues were elected to the Government Benches in 2019, that period was 36 days. The change has happened because we have rewritten the law, and done a carve-out for bank holidays and weekends. It is nonsense that the legislation is drafted in that way. We have to acknowledge and discuss the real consequences for our democracy of the length of election campaigns, but we have not done so enough. Those consequences include the engagement of voters, periods of uncertainty for the economy and the period without an effective Government. The issue is also not covered in the Government’s engagement plan.
Will Ministers please continue to look at this matter, and listen to me again on this gripping subject on Monday when we discuss the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, when I hope to move new clause 1, which has the support of not only Government Members, but Opposition Members as well?

Robert Goodwill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having a short election would help in situations such as the recent recall of Parliament on the situation in Afghanistan, or the decisions that we have had to make at short notice during the pandemic? Having a shorter election campaign would facilitate a Government being put in place to make those important decisions.

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he is a co-sponsor—and, in fact, a co-conspirator—on this entire issue, as are many Government Members. I look forward to hearing his dulcet tones on this matter again on Monday.
The second issue that I want to cover is the sensitive matter of the eligibility of candidates in parliamentary elections. There are measures in place that veto certain people from standing in general elections, so this is not a new concept in our legislation. When we are elected we are, as individuals, in unique and powerful positions of trust; we have to accept that. Parties do vet candidates, but sometimes—we know—those procedures do not work as they are intended.
Currently people cannot stand to be elected as an MP if they have been made bankrupt, but there are no similar bars for other—possibly more serious—offences. Anybody who is convicted of a sex offence is not barred from standing for election. This is about existing offences that have been tried in court, not allegations. The Centenary Action Group is suggesting an amendment to bring that offence into scope, so that we can strike a better balance between upholding the democratic freedom that people have to stand for election and safeguarding our constituents, who very often, as we all know, include children and vulnerable adults.
Many councillors who deal with issues such as those we deal with here are subject to quite stringent police checks. Now, I am not advocating that course of action, but we have to think about this carefully so that our positions are not open to abuse. I do not imagine that there are many people in this place who would think that a convicted sex offender would have a place on these green Benches.

Clive Lewis: May I first say how pleased I am to see the Minister, my constituency neighbour in Norwich, back in her place? She may have been back before today, but this is the first day that I have been back, so I welcome her to her place.
I will start with a question. If your policies are unpopular with most voters and your own party’s demographics are shrinking, what do you do? Do you change your policies so that your party’s platform is more appealing to more voters, or do you make it harder for people to vote? After reading the Bill, I think we now have this Government’s answer.
Such is the extent of the crisis of democracy, there is truly no shortage of issues that the Elections Bill could have addressed. Our first-past-the-post electoral system already means that millions of people’s votes are wasted. When the House of Commons and the House of Lords are taken together as our legislature, half our legislators are not elected. We do not even have a constitution that is publicly accessible or that has public consent. This Bill does nothing about any of these issues or the many more real problems in our elections and our democracy. Instead this Government are pouring oil on the bonfire of democracy that is taking place not just in the UK but across the world.
When public confidence in the running of elections is at its highest since 2012, we are left to ponder the obvious question: whose interests is this Bill actually serving? It certainly is not the interests of the estimated 2.1 million people who will be put at risk of being excluded from voting because they do not have recognisable photo ID. Nor does it serve the interests of working people and civil society. Their right to freedom of expression in elections through trade unions in campaigning will be hamstrung by punitive red tape and put at risk through the Government’s control of the Electoral Commission. I think it is pretty clear: the beneficiaries of this Bill are this Government and their vested interests. It is this Government who benefit from the disproportionate exclusion of the very voters hit hardest by their policies. It is the wealthy tax exiles, not members of the public, who will benefit from rules that will enable overseas electors to influence parties in elections through donations.
However, as even Conservative Members have noted, the most cynical aspect of this Bill is of course the phantom problem of voter fraud that has been summoned by this Government to create a smokescreen for naked self-interest.

Alicia Kearns: The hon. Gentleman says that voter fraud is not an issue, yet in my constituency during a by-election less than a month ago, over 30 pre-filled-in voting ballots were found dumped in a bin in a church. My community of Rutland and Melton is perhaps not normally considered a hotspot of voter fraud. If there is not voter fraud going on, why are we currently having to investigate such ballots being found around our country?

Clive Lewis: That is a fair point. Let me retort with an alternative statistic for you. There were 34 allegations of impersonation in the 2019 general election, out of 58 million votes. I took out my calculator and that works out that there was 0.0000058% fraud in the last election.
The Government have produced a piece of legislation straight out of the far-right playbook from the United States to look for a problem that does not exist. This tactic is drawn straight from the authoritarian playbook of racist American legislators. Their voter suppression laws have been and are being used to reinstate Jim Crow-era mass disenfranchisement via the back door. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which has commented on such legislation, says:
“The real reason these laws are passed is to suppress the vote, and that is in fact what happens.”
We have a crisis of democracy precisely because established institutions have failed to represent the public as a whole—failed to challenge economic self-interest in favour of the common good. The truth, as this Government know, is that their ideology of destructive and unequal growth, fuelled by oil and gas, is not shared by the British public. Even the super-wealthy see the uninhabitable world this system is creating. They choose to flee to private islands or hide out in vast compounds in the depths of New Zealand and elsewhere. This Bill, along with the protest ban and the attacks on the independent judiciary and human rights, is a buttress against the public. Authoritarian control is being shored up because this Government know they cannot win public consent freely and fairly for policies that will continue to impose poverty on an ever-greater number of people so that wealth can be extracted for a few. [Interruption.] You sit there looking incredulous, yet that is what your politics and your policies do, day in day and day out.

Anthony Browne: I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware that actually voter ID is very common in other countries. You said that it is a racist policy to bring back Jim Crow laws from the US. Are you aware that the world’s most successful multi-racial democracy, Canada, uses voter ID, as well as highly respected democracies such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and France? They all use voter ID.

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) answers that, can I please remind everybody, on all sides, not to refer to “you”, because that is me, and I have no views on this matter, as you know?

Clive Lewis: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will also know that many of the countries he mentioned already have ID cards fully in use by their populations. As you well know, we do not have them here. I know you are talking about a regional ID scheme, but if you are talking about a national ID scheme, fine, make that comparison. I do not believe you are, so I do not believe it is a fair comparison.

Nigel Evans: “He”, not “you”.

Clive Lewis: I will conclude with my question to Members on the Government Benches: how comfortable are they with Government Front Benchers who are eroding the fabric of our fragile democracy? When will they speak up and express misgivings like the right  hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about the Government’s fleeting, rocky relationship not just with the truth but with democracy? Choose soon, because history will not judge your silence well.

Nigel Evans: There will be a five-minute limit from now on. It is nothing personal, Steve.

Steven Baker: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the second time you have done that to me; the first time was my maiden speech.
I welcome this essential Bill. What I want is a fair vote for everyone, and that is why I was very pleased to lead the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament on 19 December 2019. Further to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), I am clear that in Wycombe, the victims of electoral malpractice are ethnic minorities. Overwhelmingly, it is ethnic minorities whose votes are stolen, in some cases very deliberately.
First, I want to welcome some provisions and then, if I have time, I will say where the Bill could go further. On postal votes, proxy votes and voter ID, I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but I particularly want to emphasise, because I suspect no one else will, the importance in the undue influence measure of provisions about spiritual injury and spiritual pressure. I have thousands of British Muslim supporters in Wycombe, and I know from my friends and supporters that they were accused in the most strident and offensive terms, which I will not repeat, of being apostate, because they declined to vote for the Muslim candidate. That is an absolutely outrageous way to polarise our politics. If I did it as a Christian, there would rightly be national outrage, so I am pleased to see that provision in the Bill.

Aaron Bell: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I draw his attention to the words of the judge in the Tower Hamlets case, who made the same point. He said:
“The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular, the Bangladeshi community. Their natural and laudable sense of solidarity has been cynically perverted into a sense of isolation and victimhood, and their devotion to their religion has been manipulated—all for the aggrandisement of Mr Rahman.”
That is the reality of these sorts of fraud cases.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am clear that in speaking in support of the Bill I am standing overwhelmingly for my ethnic minority voters in Wycombe. I am absolutely clear about that in my mind. I am clear that they are the most strident supporters I have on this matter in my constituency.
I will not repeat the matters that I raised on 19 December, because that took several times longer than the time I have remaining, so I will point out five areas where the Bill could go further. The first is that many people are incorrectly listed on the electoral roll, entitling them to vote. Many of the issues are already illegal, but there is a strong argument that if the electoral roll was much more tightly governed, the opportunity for criminality, and particularly the misuse of postal votes, would be reduced.
There needs to be a national check for uniqueness, but without a national database. I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for meeting me; I have shown it a technique that could be used with a kind of digital fingerprint to guarantee uniqueness. We need to ensure that people only vote once in the UK. I have seen a WhatsApp message where somebody said, “I have voted in Birmingham; I am now coming to Wycombe to vote against Baker.” I do not mind people voting against me if they are so convicted, as it were, but I do mind them voting twice.
The second point is that people register to vote at an address where they do not reside. I could take Members to a small Edwardian three-bedroom house in Wycombe where 12 electors are registered to vote. We absolutely know that they do not reside there. It is very important that people register to vote only where they reside. It is also important that people do not end up abusing the postal vote system by applying for a postal vote on someone’s behalf and then casting it without their knowledge. We also can give examples of where that can be done, although I do not have time now.
Thirdly, there are instances where foreign nationals here legally in the UK—very welcome they are, too—and with a national insurance number are not entitled to vote. We have examples of some people of Turkish nationality and some EU nationals. In some cases, people just do not know that they are not entitled to vote in a national election. We need to ensure that we tell them. I could give anecdotes of people who find they have inadvertently voted and wished they had not, because they had no intention of breaking the law, so we need to educate them.
Fourthly, I realise and accept that at this stage the Minister almost certainly cannot do anything about the national uniqueness of the electoral roll—I put that on the record so that we can come back to it—but this is an area where I think he could go further. When someone wishes to make an objection to someone’s name being on the roll at a particular address, the name of the objector must be disclosed. That is a reasonable principle of justice to ensure that the accused knows the name of their accuser. The point for me is about when their name is disclosed. It seems that just as an accused person is revealed when they are charged—not when they are arrested—so it could be the case that a person challenging the electoral roll is named publicly only at the moment when someone is charged so that that person knows who their accuser is for the purposes of the criminal justice system and the accuser does not end up exposed to intimidation for challenging registrations on the electoral roll. I make that case because such challenges need to be made and there is a problem with people either not making them or making them and subsequently feeling they were or could have been intimidated.
Finally, the Minister needs to do much more to educate voters about what the law is. For example, I am sorry to say that we cannot assume that just because a postal vote is completed by an elector in their own home, it has been completed freely. I know of one lady from an ethnic minority community who asked to cancel her postal vote because it had been taken from her and given to a candidate. I personally reported that candidate to the police. That is just one example concerning the treatment of women, which is not equal everywhere. In particular, I fear that women are not  being given the opportunity to cast their vote freely. However they choose to vote, they should have their choice. In so far as it is up to me, I am not having this country go back to the pre-suffragette era in which women’s votes were abused. That requires us to be realistic and understand that some women cast their votes at home under duress.
I welcome the Bill and am grateful to the Minister, who will have my full support. Let us not listen to some of the nonsense we have heard today.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to colleagues for this brief intervention, but I have heard that the all-party parliamentary China group has invited the ambassador of China on to the estate next week. As one of many in this place who has been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, I find that reprehensible, because Mr Speaker himself condemned the sanctioning of Members of Parliament here in very strict terms.
I have notified the chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as well as the vice-chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who I see in his place. I wonder if you would give your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, about whether such a visit should happen. The representative of the Government who have sanctioned us, trolled us, broken some of our email accounts and taken our characters around the world is coming to Parliament next week, and I think that is unfathomable.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary China group—in fairness, one of 22 vice-chairs—may I say to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) through you that I very much share his concerns? It is obviously necessary for us to engage in every way possible, but when the engagement is of the nature he described, that goes beyond normal engagement, and that should be a matter of concern across this Chamber.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for his point of order and giving me forward notice of it, as well as to Alistair Carmichael following on. I am also grateful that he informed the chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers are not responsible for the operation of APPGs. In the first instance, I suggest that he put his points to the officers of the APPG in question. Indeed, the vice-chair having said what he did gives incredible strength to the arguments.
Further, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the APPG has breached the rules, he is advised to contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He might also wish to know that the Standards Committee is undertaking an inquiry into APPGs. As he just stated, it is a matter of public record that Mr Speaker is very concerned about the sanctioning of any Members of this House by the Chinese Government for carrying out their duties as Members of Parliament.

Martin Docherty: Can I first say to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution that I am glad to see them back at the Dispatch Box? I also commend them for their passion  for the legislation they are bringing forward on behalf of the Government. I do not necessarily agree with the vast majority of it for very simple reasons, and I want to bring my words to three specific points on voter identification, assistance for excluded groups and the regulation of expenditure.
First, on voter identification, I am glad that the right hon. Member for—I can never remember his constituency. [Hon. Members: “Haltemprice and Howden.”] Exactly. It is double-barrelled and it always gets me. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is here on voter ID. I do not necessarily share the same opinion, for a very specific reason. One other hon. Member, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), has already mentioned the OSCE report on voter ID. There has been a failure to recognise in the debate so far not only that the vast majority of nations that use them have used them for a long period of time, but that some of them—for example, Estonia—not only use them to allow a citizen to go and vote, but to allow them full access to the vast majority of records the state owns on them. Therefore, your ID card—your digital ID card—will allow you to read your medical records, your police record and a vast swathe of public information held on you, the citizen. Their digital ID is yours; it is not the state’s.
The idea that also needs to be discussed and highlighted quickly is the idea that we do not have ID numbers in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The vast majority of us over the age of 15 have a national insurance number and the vast majority of us have an NHS number. Those of us representing Scottish constituencies also have our community health index—called the CHI. The issue about voter ID-specific cards is therefore a worry to me. Why are we duplicating a specific voter ID card when ID numbers already exist? Why go to the expense of creating and duplicating existing structures? I am afraid that I did not hear the answer to that in the Minister’s opening speech, and perhaps they will come back to it, if they wish, in their conclusion.
I think the onus in the legislation is on local government to provide the cards. Where does the ownership of the card reside: is it with the Government or with the local authority? The Minister mentioned the fact that it would not be connected to any databases, and that gives me the idea that it is owned not by the local authority, but by the Government. Therefore, there needs to be clarity about that ID in that it is not connected to any other single database other than someone’s voter number on the voter roll. That needs clarification.
On assisting those who are excluded, there has been no mention so far, for example, of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community. A proportion of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community still lead a nomadic lifestyle, and they will find it extremely difficult—moving from local authority to local authority or between the nations of the United Kingdom—to access a specific local authority to give them a specific voter ID. Perhaps the Minister can say a few words about that in summing up because the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community in recent months has found some of the legislation that has gone through this place very difficult.
Then we come to the regulation of expenditure, and  I referred in my intervention on the Minister to unincorporated associations. Much has been made  by Government Members about the independence of charities, for example. Not all charities that use the word “charity” are actually registered charities; they are usually unincorporated associations. They are the small organisations in each of our constituencies that go about their business doing civic duties and civic activity. But the unethical and unprincipled element of the unincorporated associations which needs to be clarified in this Bill is about how they are utilised to undermine democratic principles and fund political organisations by the back door.
There needs to be clarity in the Bill. The Minister needs to identify why we cannot use existing ID numbers that we already have, and how we can tackle the issue of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community and also make sure that unincorporated associations are not a back door to undermining the very principles of democracy across these islands.

Damien Moore: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate to express my support for the new legislation to strengthen the integrity of UK elections and protect our democracy, but I want to begin by thanking the many people inside and outside Parliament who worked so hard, particularly over the last year, to preserve and protect our democratic process despite the ensuing chaos caused by the pandemic. We owe a debt of gratitude to the workers and volunteers who administer our elections, and we owe special thanks to Lord Pickles because without his work and dedication to tackle electoral fraud in our voting system, I doubt this Bill would have come before us so soon.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution for getting this done despite the competing priorities of Government and her own personal battle. At a time when Government could be forgiven for prioritising other incentives, the refreshing display of focus and determination we are seeing today from the Government reflects a belief in the need to strengthen the integrity of our elections and protect our democracy.
Many Members will recall that only in the last Parliament I put forward my own private Member’s Bill on this topic, and I am glad to say that many of the changes I proposed around postal voting then have found their way into this Bill.
Many Members on the Opposition Benches have argued strongly that this Bill unnecessarily introduces measures that will make it more difficult to vote in future elections, that the UK has relatively low levels of proven electoral fraud, and that voters should feel confident about their vote, or that this might disenfranchise voters. In truth, the opposite is the case. This Bill will strengthen the security of our voting process by introducing a requirement for voters to show an approved form of photographic identification before collecting their ballot paper to vote in a polling station. There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity when they register to vote and to vote by post. However, there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone from claiming to be someone else and voting in their name.
This Bill will bring the rest of the UK in line with Northern Ireland, where photographic identification has been used successfully since 2003. For those concerned that any eligible voter who does not have one of a broad range of accepted identification documents will be precluded from taking part in the democratic process, the Bill and the Minister have made it clear that a proposed voter card will be available from their local authority free of charge. Furthermore, the Elections Bill places British citizens’ participation at the heart of our democracy, supporting voters to make their choices freely, securely and in an informed way without fear of interference.
Stealing someone’s vote is stealing their voice, so I welcome the Government’s attempts to stamp out any potential for voter fraud by including sensible safeguards for postal and proxy voting, which will see party campaigners banned from handling postal votes, put a stop to postal vote harvesting, and make it an offence for a person to attempt to find out or reveal who an absent voter has chosen to vote for.
I also welcome the steps taken by this Government to introduce a new electoral sanction to protect campaigners and those standing for or holding elected office from inexcusable intimidatory or abusive behaviour both in person and online, something many Members on both sides of this House have experienced and feel strongly about. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said:
“Robust debate has always been a fundamental part of our democracy, and freedom of expression is part of its appeal—but a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation and abuse that shuts down free debate.”
Finally, I welcome the steps taken in the Bill to better support voters with disabilities to exercise their democratic right by removing restrictions on who can act as a companion to a disabled voter at the polling station and requiring local returning officers to provide support for a wider range of needs. In my constituency of Southport, this is not only appropriate but necessary to strengthen the integrity of our voting system and ensure voters, irrespective of their age or disability, can participate. Too often during elections, I am contacted by residents—they have an above average age demographic—who are dissuaded from taking part in the democratic process not because of their apathy, but because of a lack of confidence in a system that makes it too difficult to vote in person with a disability.
The Bill builds on the good progress that the Government have made defending democracy. The changes that it will deliver will work alongside the measures in the online safety Bill and the counter-state threats Bill, which were announced in the most recent Queen’s Speech, to protect our globally respected UK democracy from evolving threats and ensure the systems that underpin it are fit for purpose in society today. It will introduce a number of important changes that the Electoral Commission and others have previously argued will bring benefits for voters, including extending imprint rules to digital campaign material, allowing more flexible support for disabled people, and improving transparency. I will be supporting the Bill, and I encourage hon. and right hon. Members across the House to do the same.

Beth Winter: This Bill is an affront to our democracy. It will interfere with and undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission,  it will impose excessive and unnecessary restrictions on campaigning groups and, worst of all, it will not only disallow the voting rights of millions who do not have ID but lead to an even lower level of voter engagement. This Bill is unnecessary, costly and a Conservative power grab.
Although the proposal to introduce voter ID has been widely covered already, I feel that I must emphasise that we should be working to encourage and support the people of the UK to exercise their democratic right to vote, not disenfranchising them. That is particularly likely to be the case for the most disadvantaged groups, who are already the most marginalised in our society.
I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention a joint statement on voter ID by a coalition of 19 Welsh organisations, which highlights how proposals in the Bill risk the disenfranchisement of already marginalised groups in Wales that they work with and represent, including homeless people, people with disabilities, older people, ethnic minorities, young people, Gypsies and Travellers, and the Roma community in Wales. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that joint statement.
In contrast, I am extremely proud that the Welsh Government have taken exactly the approach that I feel is needed by taking action to encourage young people to vote—16 and 17-year-olds voted for the first time in Senedd elections in May this year—and making it easier for people to vote across the board. We are also looking to trial polling stations in schools and colleges to tackle low youth turnout at elections, and we are considering putting polling stations in supermarkets and leisure centres. These steps will make it easier for people to vote and make our democracy a more vibrant one where everyone’s vote counts.
If the Government press ahead with their proposals, my constituents will notice a stark difference between Welsh elections and Westminster elections. They will enjoy easy and accessible elections for local government and the Senedd, and they will face enormous barriers and inconveniences when it comes time to elect their MP. I would be interested to hear what discussions Ministers have had with the Welsh Government on the proposals in the Bill.
There is much more to this Bill than voter ID. It threatens the independence of the Electoral Commission with Government and parliamentary interference. It gives the Government and the Tory party the ability to set the strategic plan for the body that oversees elections. That is significant, as the Electoral Commission has investigated many key Government allies in recent years, including Vote Leave, and the Conservative party for its 2017 election spending. It is clear to me that these proposals will undermine the Electoral Commission and stifle oversight and criticism.
I also have grave doubts about the proposals surrounding third-party campaigners and the impact that they may have on important campaigning groups, charities and trade unions. The majority of campaign work during elections is done by individuals and groups that are not members of political parties, and results in increased voter registration and turnout. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life commented,
“third-party campaigning is a good thing, because it encourages people to vote”.
What we should be doing is putting measures in place that encourage people to vote, as we are doing in Wales. This Bill does the opposite, and I oppose it.

Nigel Evans: Without my even imposing a four-minute limit, which I am about to do, you did it in four minutes, so congratulations. Four minutes—James Grundy.

James Grundy: I welcome the Bill. The provisions within it are long overdue. Given how thoroughly the ground has been gone over on some of the main planks of this legislation, I do not intend to go over it again. I do, however, wish to raise a number of technical points relating to the governance of local elections. Having stood in local elections as a candidate, or acted as an agent for more than 20 years in the seat I now represent, I have some experience of that.
First, I welcomed the changes to the nomination process for this year’s set of local elections, whereby only two signatures were required on the nomination paper, instead of the normal 10. This greatly reduced the administrative burden for both political parties and independent candidates in the local elections, leading to a considerable increase in participation, especially by independent candidates and those from minor parties, and making it easier for major parties to field candidates across wards they might otherwise have struggled to do so in. I hope the changes will be made permanent. I understand that this system, or one very similar to it, has been in place in Scotland since 2007 without either incident or much controversy. I hope that such a measure will be incorporated in the Bill.
Hon. Members will also be aware that many metropolitan boroughs are undergoing local government boundary reviews at the moment, meaning that in short order they will have what are known as all-out elections. Most metropolitan boroughs normally elect by thirds, with three-member wards. Broadly speaking, those wards tend to be very large compared with some of the  more rural areas, with electorates ranging from roughly 10,000 to 20,000 depending on the local authority.
In all-out elections in three-member wards, the number of candidates can of course triple, so five candidates can become 15. That can lead to very long ballot papers, which can lead to confusion for electors, especially the elderly, and can be very difficult to tally for counting staff, given that candidates from the same party are scattered across the ballot paper. This can turn a count that would normally be completed in a few hours into a daylong event.
I propose that, when multiple candidates are up for election in the same ward, candidates should still be listed individually on the ballot paper, but should be grouped on the ballot paper by political party for the ease of the public in finding their candidates of choice and for the ease of counting staff in tallying votes at the count. That change would reduce confusion for electors and considerably foreshorten the length of local election counts in this type of all-out elections.
Finally, there is the matter of the relatively recently established metro Mayor elections. [Interruption.] I know, I know. Currently, mayoral elections can overlap with   local elections in the metropolitan authorities they cover. Unfortunately, this has led to unforeseen consequences for the administration of these elections, particularly the count. Earlier, I alluded to the fact that local election counts in a metropolitan borough such as Wigan can be over in an hour or two in normal circumstances. The recent combined local and mayoral elections in Greater Manchester, including polling day, took three days to administer as opposed to the normal one. On the Friday of the count, staff had verified the ballots cast in the local election by 10 am, but were forced to wait until 4 pm before they could start counting them due to issues with the verification of the mayoral ballots—a six-hour wait before counting could even begin. The mayoral ballots had to be verified again on Saturday morning before they could be counted. Most staff and counting agents were exhausted after three very long days across—

Nigel Evans: Order. We have to leave it there. I am terribly sorry.

Owen Thompson: I draw the attention of Members to the fact that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
I consider it a privilege to take part in our political landscape, where democracy comes in different shapes and sizes and where it is the voters’ place to march in the streets and to choose who they put in this place. The presence of non-party campaigners—charities and campaign groups in the third sector—add a diversity of voices and expertise to our politics, bringing overlooked issues on to the political agenda and in so doing helping us all to make better decisions. That considered, clause 23 seems almost incomprehensible to anyone who values having a participatory democracy or an engaged society. The clause essentially hands Ministers the power to create conditions on whether certain bodies can take part in the electoral process, or remove them all together. They could be used, for instance, to bar anyone who has been in police custody from campaigning, which would take out thousands of environmental campaigners. It could even be used to create an outright ban for certain organisations, such as trade unions.
Additionally, lowering the spending limit for groups to register as non-party campaigners to £700 essentially hands the Government the power to disqualify any group from campaigning, while the new limitations on joint campaigning could clamp down on electoral pacts. I find that somewhat ironic given that the party of Government here, only four months ago, were calling for just such Unionist pacts in the Scottish elections.
This piece of legislation gives the Government of the day power over what kind of campaigning they consider acceptable during election periods and who can campaign. It is a naked attempt to swing elections in the ruling party’s favour by letting them write the rules for their own re-election. The Government or Opposition parties do not have to agree with what campaigners are calling for, but we should at least accept the right to participate. Instead, by narrowing our public life and stifling what makes our politics pluralistic, this Government are reading the same playbook as Orbán and Hungary.
Even Parliament is being attacked. Clause 23(2) explicitly ensures that this place will have no power to annul a statutory instrument that seeks to amend or remove the list of who counts as a non-party campaigner. This compounds the Bill’s attack on accountability, with the Electoral Commission’s independence being shattered by the new requirement to conform to a strategy document written by the Government, and its powers to prosecute being removed.
These might seem like technical changes, but they tie into this Government’s broader agenda of shrinking participation in extra-parliamentary political life until democracy is something that happens only in this place. If the Government get their way, which, by the sounds of it, looks quite likely tonight considering their insistence on keeping their unfair majoritarian voting system, we will soon be living in a society where the right to protest is severely restricted by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, where the Electoral Commission is toothless, and where even the process of going to vote is complicated unnecessarily by the requirement for voter ID restrictions.
It is only a few years since similar measures saw the US downgraded by the “Democracy Index” to a “flawed democracy”. Is that the trajectory for this country? Is that really the Government’s vision for a country that they make such a song and dance about loving—a disenfranchised and disengaged electorate with nothing to protect them from the insulated ruling classes fiddling the rules to stay in power?
With so much of what we see from the Government, it is impossible not to draw contrasts. The Scottish Government have increased the franchise to include  16 and 17-year-olds, asylum seekers and those serving custodial sentences with less than a year remaining. Scotland just held its most inclusive election ever, while this Government seemingly advocate leaving politics to the Etonians. Whenever this Government take steps to frustrate democracy, they justify them by conjuring scenes of rampant voter fraud. This simply is not the case and the Bill must be opposed.

Mark Fletcher: There have been moments today, listening to Opposition Members, when I have felt like I have been missing my tin foil hat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) and I turn up to all these events united in a purpose, because we both lived through an experience in Tower Hamlets that is incredibly difficult to forget. When I am told that there is no problem with our elections, I find it very hard to square that with my experiences.
One of the key things, as I mentioned in a recent Westminster Hall debate, relates to what happened in Tower Hamlets. There was a tremendous injustice and a court case that overturned an election. Some people involved included one of my political mentors, Councillor Peter Golds. However, we were not campaigning for  the Conservatives to win an election. This was not about the Conservatives—for some strange reason, the Conservatives are not a great electoral force in Tower Hamlets. It was very much about an independent group that had won the election, and in fact, the Labour party was the runner-up.
During the campaign, we saw postal vote harvesting on an immense scale. We saw a level of personation that was mind-blowing to those of us who care about our democratic system. We saw intimidation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) mentioned in what I thought was an astoundingly good speech, “undue spiritual influence”. That had been on the statute book for a long time but no one considered it particularly relevant any more. There was a great injustice and those of us who were political campaigners could see it play out, because after a while we knew what we were looking for. No matter who we complained to—the Electoral Commission or the Metropolitan police—no action was taken.
I appreciate all the points that Opposition Members have made that there is not really an issue because there are very few cases, but we had a court case on these issues that was brought not by any of the authorities that oversee elections, but by four members of the public who acted as electoral petitioners. They were the ones forced to undertake that action, because our system was failing. When people say that there is no issue in this country, that personation is not a problem or that we should be looking at every other issue that has been listed today, I say politely that we have ignored this issue for a long time and our authorities would not act.
The judge in the Tower Hamlets case, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) quoted earlier, said:
“The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular, the Bangladeshi community…Even in the multicultural society which is 21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost.”

Alec Shelbrooke: Can my hon. Friend think of any other example of Members saying in this House that victims should be ignored because there is not much of a problem?

Mark Fletcher: No, I cannot easily recall such an issue, and I hope that that is never our approach in this House.
I appreciate that Opposition Members have raised many points that they feel equally strongly about, but I just think that they are in the wrong ballpark. If they were being consistent, they would be campaigning to repeal the voter ID laws in Northern Ireland, which are incredibly successful and were brought in by a Labour Government.
I just think that there is a huge inconsistency in what has been happening today. I am no fan of the Electoral Commission, which I think could be abolished and replaced tomorrow with something considerably more successful, but the commission has called for voter identification. My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has repeatedly made the point that international organisations have called for voter ID to be brought in. The vast majority of people in this country have an ID that they use day to day. For those who do not, who are absolutely a fair group of people to talk about, there is a readily available system in the Bill with financial support to ensure that they are not disfranchised. I honestly cannot work out why the Opposition are making such a song and dance about a system that will be strengthened.

Geraint Davies: The Tower Hamlets investigation in 2012 found only three cases after 64 allegations, yet on the back of it the hon. Gentleman is making out that we should deny millions of people the right to vote. It is ridiculous.

Mark Fletcher: I am pretty sure that I dealt with the point about numbers in the first part of what I said. In regard to the idea that millions will be disfranchised, I think a number of 3.5 million was produced by the Electoral Commission. That is now five years out of date—forgive me if I am off by a year or two—and does not take into account the range of identification that can be used under the Bill, so in fact the number goes down substantially. Further to the point about the Bangladeshi community, 99% of ethnic minority people in this country have some form of identification that would allow them to vote under the Bill, so, again, I cannot quite understand why such a song and dance is being made.
Having trust in our electoral system is so vital to this country. All of us who are willing to stand up for those who have had their votes taken away stand in support of the Bill.

Patrick Grady: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) appeared to accuse some Members on the Opposition Benches of having tin foil hats, but I have to say that that was a particularly shiny and reflective contribution.
The reality is that the Bill will create more problems than it seeks to solve. The short-term effect of voter identification will be to suppress turnout, particularly among people for whom it is already low. As others have said, the Government are effectively trying to stop what they consider to be the wrong kind of voters getting to the polls in the first place. What is someone supposed to do if they turn up on a wet Thursday night, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, and at quarter to 10, just before the polls close, they discover that they do not have their ID on them? They will effectively be disfranchised because they cannot go back and pick it up. The Electoral Reform Society estimates that at least 2.1 million people without photo ID will miss their chance to vote.
Let us consider what this Bill could have done. It could have introduced automatic voter registration.  It could have expanded the franchise to match what is happening in the devolved nations, and it could, as others have said, have created room for experiments to make it easier to vote in different places and at different times from those that we are traditionally used to in this country. I also echo the concerns of the RNIB. I think that Ministers rightly want to ensure that there is support for everyone who has particular requirements when it comes to votes, but that can be a both/and; it does not have to be an either/or.
As my SNP colleagues have already said, this has to be seen in the wider context. The repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, even the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—all those are laws that enhance the power of the Executive and reduce the ability of voters and legislatures to hold the Executive to account. The  Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which will be considered next week, means that only the Government—indeed, only the Prime Minister—will know the date of an election, and only the Government will know when the different regulated periods will actually kick in and people can campaign accordingly. That will make it very difficult for everyone else, irrespective of whether they are a political party or a third party, to understand how they are supposed to fit into those regulated periods. On top of that, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will give the Government increasing powers to shut down dissent and suppress opposition. As for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, it is the greatest power grab since devolution. The UK Government are now routinely legislating at will, and with complete disregard for the consent or otherwise of the devolved Parliaments.
Let us compare and contrast that with what is happening in Scotland. The Scottish election in May was held on the widest and most diverse franchise ever enacted in these islands: 16 and 17-year-olds, European nationals and refugees with settled status were all acknowledged and welcomed into democratic participation. What this Bill will bring about is a UK Government elected on an increasingly narrow and difficult franchise, and devolved Governments elected on increasingly wide and more inclusive franchises. That will have consequences for  the legitimacy and the mandates of those respective Governments. Today, this Government are breaking one of their key manifesto promises while trying to deny the Scottish National party and the Green party in Scotland the right to implement their manifesto pledge on an independence referendum.
There is a tradition in this House of Representation of the People Acts that have sought to widen the franchise and make it easier and fairer for more people in different parts of society to vote. What we are presented with today is a Misrepresentation of the People Bill—a Bill which, possibly for the first time since 1832, will seek to reduce the number of people eligible or able to vote, will suppress democratic participation, and will put up greater barriers to political engagement. European nationals—the Minister keeps asking about this—who could vote in local elections in England are now no longer able to do so, as a direct result of the Bill. That is a reduction of the franchise, and it is part of a wider Tory agenda to centralise and control, but what it will do is strengthen the mandate and the legitimacy of the devolved institutions—and that includes the mandate for a second independence referendum.

Alberto Costa: Let me directly address the comments just made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) by warmly welcoming the Government’s proposals in the Bill, particularly those aimed at finally enshrining in law the rights of certain EU citizens to vote in local elections in England and Northern Ireland, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales.
As Members will recall, I, along with some others, have long championed the rights of UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living here in the UK. Safeguarding those rights has been an essential promise in our leaving the EU. In the UK, there are millions of  EU citizens who have made it their home, contributing to our economy, wellbeing and culture. Likewise, there are over a million British citizens contributing to the economic wellbeing of the EU countries that they now call home.
Following the motion on citizens’ rights that I put before the House in February 2019, the House reaffirmed its determination to protect the rights of citizens affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It was the only occasion, as far as I can recall, when the House was absolutely unanimous on a major Brexit issue. I am very proud of having helped to protect the rights of millions of innocent people.
This Bill builds upon those commitments by ensuring that EU citizens with settled status will continue to hold the franchise for local elections in England, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and elections of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. The Bill will provide EU citizens with the necessary protections and peace of mind by ensuring that their voices continue to be heard at local and regional levels in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Anthony Browne: I very much praise my hon. Friend for the work he did on protecting the rights of EU citizens. I think the whole House was grateful to him for that. I support the view on reciprocity. Does he think that the UK Government should encourage other EU countries to enable British citizens who live there to vote?

Alberto Costa: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. That is exactly the ask that I have for Government Ministers this evening.
For EU citizens who may have arrived and settled after the implementation period’s completion—that is, from 1 January this year—I would like to welcome the additional steps this Government have taken in the form of bilateral arrangements with several EU member states, to which my hon. Friend has just alluded. Agreements are already in place with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland. They mean that citizens of those nations who may have arrived after the transition period will also be afforded the right to vote in our local elections, and similarly, reciprocal arrangements will apply to British citizens resident in those countries. That goes beyond the obligations envisioned by the EU in the withdrawal agreement, and the Government are to be commended for their choice to enter into bilateral arrangements with those individual EU member state countries, ensuring that wherever possible we enhance the rights of UK citizens living in those countries as well as the citizens of those countries living here.

Patrick Grady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alberto Costa: Not at the moment.
I understand that the Government are open to further such agreements with other EU member states, and  that is a most welcome prospect. It would mean that their residents and British citizens could benefit from future voting arrangements. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Greece, I recently met the secretary-general of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Demiris, in Athens, and informed him of the UK Government’s offer to enter into bilateral agreements with EU states on the granting of mutual  franchise rights in municipal elections, as envisioned in this Bill. I would welcome the Government writing to me to explain what measures they are taking to proactively encourage uptake of their offer to enter into such bilateral agreements.

Chloe Smith: indicated assent.

Alberto Costa: I think the Minister is nodding to suggest that she will write to me on that matter.
But the Government have gone further still. EU nationals who do not fulfil the qualifying criteria set by the Bill—for instance, those who have come to the UK post the implementation period completion date of 1 January 2021 and do not hold settled status, but who were elected into a public role as defined by the Bill in schedule 7—have the protection afforded by the provision of part 4 to continue in office for the period of their elected term. Again, this is a sensible, welcome measure to protect the rights of those EU citizens. I will be supporting the Government’s Bill, and I very much look forward to seeing these important rights finally enshrined into law.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups will begin at 6.40 pm. This will be the last speech of four minutes, and we will then move to a time limit of three minutes.

Alistair Carmichael: I want to take a few seconds to place on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on her excellent maiden speech. I am sure it is a matter of easy consensus in the House that Lib Dem maiden speeches are all too rare these days, and I thought my hon. Friend’s speech was exceptionally fine. As a former Chief Whip for my party, I was delighted to hear her declare her intention to prosecute her constituents’ case with an independence of mind to match that of the late Cheryl Gillan.
“If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am…then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister. I think we should watch the Division lists this evening with some interest. I have no doubt that he will perform that feat of gastronomic improbability while lying in front of a bulldozer to stop the creation of a third runway at Heathrow.
The difficulty that the Government face in introducing the Bill is that their proposals for voter identification seek to produce a solution for which there is no obvious problem. That is not to say that voter personation does not happen. We have heard instances of it described today, and indeed we knew for many years that it was a substantial and real problem in Northern Ireland. That is why, having identified the problem, it was right for the then Government to act to end it. But to justify the measures in this Bill, the Government should first have provided evidence to show there is a problem, and they have singularly failed to do so.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said the Bill would have benefited from prelegislative scrutiny, and he is absolutely right. The cost-benefit analysis is to be seen in the pilot that the Government carried out in 2019 when, of the 2,000 people who were turned away from polling stations, 700 did not return, which should give us serious pause before we go down this road.
If the Treasury Bench, having missed the opportunity for prelegislative scrutiny, are able to get this Bill, in its current form, through both Houses—I anticipate that will be a bigger ask in the other place—they should undertake a programme of post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the promises they make tonight are honoured in the execution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) told me that she appears on the electoral register as Christine Jardine, but her passport shows her married name. That is by no means unusual, as in Scotland one’s name is the name by which one chooses to be known. That sort of thing could have been teased out by prelegislative scrutiny, but it is now too late.
There are many other issues about which I am concerned but, unfortunately, time is against me. I will vote against the Bill tonight.

Anthony Browne: The first time I went to a polling booth, I brought some ID with me. I assumed that surely I would need to prove who I am, so I was stunned when I was told, “Actually, no, you don’t need to show any ID.” I remember little 18-year-old me thinking that democracy is our most valuable asset, yet anyone can vote in someone else’s name without anybody checking.
It is often said that justice not only needs to be done but needs to be seen to be done, and the same could be said of democracy. Democracy not only needs to be fair; it needs to be seen to be fair. We have to accept that we have a problem in this country. At the last election, a constituent came to me after he went to vote but found that somebody had already voted in his name. There was nothing he could do. His vote was stolen. Would Opposition Members say to him, “Well, actually, the Government should not do anything to stop your vote being stolen in future”?
It is often said, and many Opposition Members have been saying it, that the rate of voter fraud in the UK is very low, but how would we know? By definition, it is a hidden crime. Reported cases are low, but we do not know the actual rate. The truth is that, without safeguards, bad practice drives out good practice, or it can do. Like MPs’ expenses or phone hacking by journalists, if people do bad things and others see them get away with it unpunished, those people will think they can also do it.
I worked for the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London. I was not as directly involved in Tower Hamlets as some of my hon. Friends, but I knew many of the politicians. The electoral fraud happening there was an open secret for years, totally undermining local democracy. I wondered why nothing was done about it, and I was very frustrated.

Alberto Costa: Does my hon. Friend agree that Peter Golds, an excellent Tory councillor, has done so much to highlight that very issue?

Anthony Browne: Absolutely. Peter Golds is one of the politicians I talked to at the time, and he has done excellent work in trying to restore trust in democracy in Tower Hamlets. Ridiculously, it was not until 2014 that the courts annulled the election; we should never have been able to get into that situation. There are endless stories in the media about voter fraud. Confidence in the integrity of democracy is being eroded, and there is a clear solution. The Electoral Commission said, after its research, that two thirds of voters say they would have more confidence in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show voter ID. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has said, the OSCE, which normally bothers itself about the emerging democracies in eastern Europe, said after the 2010 UK elections that
“serious consideration should be given to introducing a more robust mechanism for identification of voters.”
I agree with that.
I also agree with Opposition Members that this must not lead to the disenfranchisement of voters. However, as we have heard, 99% of voters already have a photo ID of some sort and those who do not can get free photo ID from their local council. Labour introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland in 2003 and there is no evidence of disenfranchisement there. As I mentioned, many of the leading and most respected democracies in the world have already got voter ID—Norway, Sweden, Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria have it. We are in many ways an outlier in Europe. Voters are losing confidence in democracy in Britain and we have a duty to ensure that democracy is both fair and seen to be fair. We must introduce voter ID, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Rachel Hopkins: I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate on this Bill as it directly threatens the functioning of our democracy. On 13 July, I held a Westminster Hall debate on  the Government’s voter ID proposals, when I made the point that voting is safe and secure in Britain. The introduction of photographic voter ID will only work to reverse decades of democratic progress in the UK. As we have heard, according to academic research 99% of election staff do not think that fraud has occurred in their polling stations and 88% of the public say that they think our polling stations are safe. So this Bill offers a solution without a problem. There was just one conviction for personation out of more than 59 million votes cast in 2019.
The Electoral Reform Society has said that in the US and the UK the richer someone is, the more likely they are to have photo ID, and that gets to the nub of the issue. It does not matter how the Conservative party tries to dress it up, these plans will make it harder for working class, older, black, Asian and ethnic minority people to vote, and for those who are unemployed or disabled to do so. According to the Cabinet Office’s figures, this move is going to cost the taxpayer £120 million over 10 years.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the Government that photographic voter ID will disproportionately impact voters with protected characteristics, and if voters are disenfranchised, it would violate article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Windrush scandal showed how some communities struggle to provide official documentation, and we have seen the severe consequences of that. Some 3.5 million citizens do not have access to any form of photo ID, and the Government’s solution of free voter ID also does not stand up to scrutiny, because their own research found that 42% of those without ID would not apply for a voter ID card. The Association of Electoral Administrators has raised serious concerns about the huge administrative burden that will be placed on already overstretched local authorities. So can the Minister confirm that the plan is to make councils such as my local Luton Borough Council, which has had more than £150 million stripped from its budget in the past 11 years, deliver and enforce photo ID cards, alongside the added burden of registering millions of new overseas electors, and on top of boundary changes? The proposed plan is not credible and it is out of touch with reality.
In my concluding remarks, I very much wish to echo the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) about our opposition to the Bill’s attack on free and fair campaigning by non-party activists such as trade unions and charities in respect of campaigning for or working with political parties to a joint goal. This legislation erodes our democracy and takes votes and power away from working people, and I will be opposing it.

Alec Shelbrooke: I can do no better than repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) said about voter ID, which has been explored a lot today. I should add that I have heard many odd conspiracy theories from the Opposition in this debate, not least from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who said that Vote Leave was a branch of the Government. I think David Cameron and George Osborne might take issue with that.
In the brief time I have, I want to focus on the parts of the Bill that deal with online campaigning, digital media and digital imprints. Probably one of the most dangerous and pervasive abuses in our political system has come through the growth of social media. I am lucky: I am a man—I do not get the horrific abuse that women get when they stand in politics. Men can have sympathy with that but not empathy, because I have never been told that I am going to be raped and murdered, that my children are going to be killed or anything like that, but women experience that on social media on a daily basis. The provisions in the Bill to crack down on the intimidation of candidates and people who put themselves forward for public services are extremely welcome.
There is an important point to be made about faith in democracy. Lots of people have mentioned the American election, and I also want to do so. What happened on 6 January was an utter disgrace, and everybody who values democracy believes that, but it was mainly amplified to that public by social media and the outputs that  stirred it up. We cannot stop that, but when there are other campaigns with conspiracy theories underneath, we can demand that there be an imprint on social media content to say where it has come from.
In general election campaigns, conspiracy theories are pushed that seek directly to undermine the validity of democratic arguments. We in this Chamber may have huge disagreements, but we all know that we cannot have a democracy unless we disagree with each other, and there should be an honest debate about that among us. If stuff is being published and we do not know where it comes from, we have to question its validity. Equally, if we say that it is from the Conservative party, the public will view it as a message from the Conservative party and certain things will be built in in respect of how people interpret and view that.
The steps in the Bill that cover the development of electronic media over the past couple of decades are an important, modern way to address an issue that so far has not been addressed. As an overall package of measures, the Bill has my full support.

Joanna Cherry: Much of the opposition to the Bill has been focused on concerns about voter ID, but there are broader concerns that I wish to address.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a detailed report of the human rights implications of voter ID, and I commend it and our recommendations to the House. I believe in evidence-based policy making, and from the evidence the Committee heard we concluded that the voter ID measures risk making voting less accessible to some people and will have a discriminatory impact on some voters with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, including the disabled, certain ethnic minorities and Gypsy and Traveller communities.
We on the Committee want the Government to explain why they have concluded that a voter ID requirement is necessary and proportionate, given the very low number of reported cases of fraud at polling stations; the even lower number of convictions and cautions; the potential for the requirement to discriminate against voters with protected characteristics; and the lack of any clear measures to combat potential discrimination faced by those groups, including disabled people and older people. I hope that I might hear from the Minister the answers to those question, which were posed by a cross-party Committee of MPs and peers.
Many Members ask why the Government are focusing on voter ID, given the lack of evidence that it is a significant problem. I wonder whether perhaps it is in the Bill to distract us not just from what else is in the Bill that should not be there but from what is missing. Part 4 seeks further to regulate third-party campaigning in elections, but an opportunity to comprehensively update our rules on transparency in political finance has been missed. As other Members have said, the  lack of transparency in respect of donations from unincorporated associations is a particular concern.

Martin Docherty: The Bill fails to understand the total degradation of democracy through unincorporated organisations. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government need to grasp that thorn and deal with it?

Joanna Cherry: Indeed, I do, but I do not think that the Government want to grasp that thorn. We already know that some Tory and Unionist associations in Scotland are doing rather well out of dark money from such sources.
It is part 3 that contains perhaps the most egregious aspect of the Bill. The Government seek to take to themselves the power to prepare a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. I know that the Bill also says that Parliament must approve that strategy, but, with the Tory majority on the Government Benches, it is unlikely to be more than a rubber-stamping exercise.
The Speaker’s Committee is the primary mechanism through which the Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. It will have the job both of evaluating the commission’s performance against the statement to be produced by the Government and of holding the commission accountable. However, as I understand it, for the first time ever, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is now composed of a majority of MPs from the governing party. Accordingly, the independence of the commission and its accountability to Parliament—not to the Government, but to Parliament —is under real threat from part 3 of this Bill. This Bill is not the way to enhance the independence and role of our democracy watchdog. Part 3 needs radical amendment in line with the recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, including powers to obtain information and an increase in the maximum fine for wrongdoing.
Before I sit down, I will renew the request that I made to the Minister during my intervention. It is very good to see her back in her place, but I would like her to answer this question: how many of the 47 recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life are the Government prepared to accept and bring into this Bill by way of Government amendment? I would be grateful if she could answer that question in her summing-up.

Tom Randall: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) with whom I have campaigned for many days and hours in Tower Hamlets. My first experience of Tower Hamlets elections was the infamous 2014 election, which was later declared void. As a polling agent at Three Mills Primary School in the Isle of Dogs, I watched from afar as voters ran a gauntlet of activists brandishing leaflets. The activists were very aggressive to voters, especially women, as they entered the polling station. When I went in to speak to the police officer about it, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “Tower Hamlets, innit.”
What I saw at Three Mills Primary School was not the worst. The Mawrey judgment quotes a Labour polling agent who said that she was with her husband in the car and people were banging on the windows with leaflets. She said:
“The situation was so bad that I thought there was going to be some sort of accident. I could not even open a door and we had to go down another road.”
An election was stolen in Tower Hamlets, but despite all the intimidation, it did not actually cross the threshold of an electoral offence, so I am glad that that aspect is  being tightened up. There has been a constant refrain today that fraud is rare, but it is like a curate’s egg; if it is bad in parts it affects the whole, and it has been partially bad in Tower Hamlets, Slough, Birmingham and elsewhere. I welcome both the reform to handling proxy votes and postal votes and the introduction of voter ID. As Mawrey identified in his judgment, there was at that election in Tower Hamlets an appreciable amount of impersonation by false registration.
I would like to focus the limited time that I have on the police, because there has been constant talk about the fact that there is no evidence of electoral fraud. Well, there will be no evidence if the police do not investigate it. Before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this morning, Peter O’Doherty of Thames Valley police said that the situation was much improved. I did not embarrass him by saying that he was starting from a very low base. Mawrey, in his judgment on conduct at polling stations, said:
“In the light of the two other groups of statements, an unkind person might remark that the policemen and polling staff had appeared to take as their rôle models the legendary Three Wise Monkeys.”
There has been a whole catalogue of allegations, and I do not have time to go through them this afternoon. Many of the allegations that have arisen from the Rahman trial have not been investigated by the Metropolitan police. I think that there is scope—I appreciate that it is outside the scope of this Bill—for complex electoral fraud to be taken out of the hands of the police and possibly placed with a specialist unit.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. Do his comments basically throw out this argument that only three people have ever been prosecuted?

Tom Randall: I will give my right hon. Friend one example, of which there are many. In the Mawrey judgment of 2014, Kabir Ahmed was found to have used a false address to register a vote, but no further action was taken. Having had no action taken against him, he was elected as the Aspire candidate in the Weavers ward by-election in Tower Hamlets last month. There are people who are getting away with it, and people will continue to get away with it if no action is taken.
I support the Bill but there needs to be a culture change, with the development of specialist officers, perhaps from a different agency within the police, other than a county force. I welcome these measures, but they are just a start. If we are going to increase the number of convictions for electoral fraud, we need to ensure that we have the systems in place properly to investigate these cases, and then we will have numbers to show how widespread the problem can be.

Geraint Davies: As you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Aneurin Bevan famously said that in the struggle between property and poverty, as poverty grows, property will attack democracy. That is what we see today. We need to answer the question: cui bono? Who benefits? We know that 3 million people do not carry photo ID and that 40% will turn away from voting if they forget their ID, which people often  do. Something like 30% of people do not vote in general elections anyway, and our focus should be to increase the franchise, not decrease it.
Poverty is spiralling upwards. Universal credit is going to be cut, and 7 million people in Britain are in hunger and poverty. We know that the plan is to tax jobs with national insurance, rather than a progressive tax. This Bill is designed to ensure that those who are hit hardest—the poorest—will find it more difficult to vote. I very much support evidence-based policy, but this is not evidence-based; it is looking for the evidence. To tighten up on personation, we could just get the police to do more checks within the existing law.
These provisions are part of a pattern of consolidating power and preventing democracy from turning the Government over to another political party. We have seen it in the banning of the right to peaceful protest; with the up and coming review of judicial power; with the boundary changes, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and even the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. All those things consolidate power and do not support the fundamental values that all parties should support: justice in the rule of law, democracy and human rights. We see the restriction on what charities and communities can say, while we allow overseas donors more influence in our politics. We see the Electoral Commission politicised. We saw the rhetoric of the Trump supporters, who said, “Stop the steal”, alleged personation and stormed the White House. We are supporting that sort of thinking, which is without basis.
This Bill is a missed opportunity. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and others, in Wales we are moving forward with democracy, including through 16-year-olds having the vote and proportional representation options in local government. Our focus should be to enhance, renew and embolden our democracy, our human rights and the rule of law, but I fear that this Bill is part of a pattern to diminish them, and that over time we will all regret this fundamental mistake.

Robbie Moore: Even before I was elected to be MP for Keighley, it was clear that the framework in which elections took place left the door wide open to electoral fraud. In fact, my constituency is deemed to be at high risk of such fraud, with one in five reports of electoral fraud coming from the West Yorkshire area. These includes cases of bribery, false statements and exerting undue influence on voters.
The key reason for the problem is the national postal vote system. Changes to the system are required. The Bill shows encouraging signs, shortening the time in which someone may register to vote by post, prohibiting political campaigners from handling postal votes and limiting the number of electors on whose behalf someone may hand in a postal vote. All those measures will help, but I fear that we could do more to protect the postal vote system. That is why I politely ask the Government to explain how the changes to postal voting will help to stop electoral fraud in its entirety. What reassurances can the Government give that merely shortening the amount of time that someone can have a postal vote before simply renewing it will stop such a postal vote being misused in that shortened period? Equally, how  will prohibiting political campaigners from handling postal votes in public stop what we all know goes on behind closed doors?
In Keighley there are known situations with the head of the household guaranteeing multiple postal votes to candidates, postal vote harvesting, false registration, undue pressure being put on individuals to pass across their postal vote, and multiple individuals being registered to a single household when it is known that they are not all residing there in their full capacity. In Keighley we have known about these issues for far too long.
I hope that the Bill, as it progresses, will help to address some of these issues, but I would like the Government to go further to address some of the others. For example, why not have postal votes apply only for specific reasons such as for those who are sick or elderly or those who can demonstrate that they have to be away from home for specific reasons? More debate is worthy on that. Likewise, the right to automatic renewal for a postal vote should be reviewed, and when a reapplication is made for a postal vote, proof of identity must be given.
Our elections are precious. What I want to see in Keighley and beyond must be shown to work and must be done to improve our electoral system, particularly for postal voting.

Kenny MacAskill: I have two caveats and two anecdotes. First, all legislation requires to be taken in the round and in the general context that Members have mentioned, and that is why I am concerned about this Bill as a whole as opposed to just specific aspects. Secondly, it is a privilege to be an elected Member, and we have a duty to nourish and cherish democracy. In that respect, this Bill fails because it challenges democracy.
Of my two anecdotes, one describes what needs to be done to support the democratic aspects that we should all welcome as elected Members, and the second is a warning about the apparent direction of travel. First, I commend to the Minister, and anybody else in the House, “Civic Literacy” by Professor Henry Milner, formerly of Laval and of Oulu in Finland, whose book explains what works about why people vote. He correlated and contrasted why countries such as Belgium and Australia, where it is a criminal offence not to vote, have a lower turnout than in Scandinavian countries where it is not. He explains the aspects that matter. Much of it is not about legislation. It is perhaps very laissez-faire, but in a much wider context. It is about public sector broadcasting, which is why comments made about Channel 4 are important. It is about a quality press. It is about civic education in schools. These aspects are important and that is the direction of travel we should be pursuing.

Alberto Costa: The hon. Member is explaining some very noble values about the democratic process, all of which I agree with, but can he explain why in his current party, Alba, and in his previous role as a Scottish Government Minister in the SNP Government, he denied hundreds of thousands of Scottish women and men the right to have a vote in the Scottish independence referendum, which was about breaking up the very nation that they came from? Can he please explain why there was a democratic deficit there?

Kenny MacAskill: That is a past debate, and the people of Scotland will decide the future in a referendum in due course.
Let me deal with the warning. It comes not from the OSCE, which has been mentioned, but from the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. I remember a friend of mine who worked for it sending me a CD of what had happened in the Soviet Union as it was about to collapse and before the Commonwealth of Independent States—the Russian Republic—was formed. The Heritage Foundation moved in, giving lectures to people who became oligarchs—governors of huge tracts of land probably larger than the United Kingdom. They were taught two things about democracy. The first was, “Don’t bother about turnout, because the lower the turnout, the higher the leverage for you.” That was teaching people about democracy—those who had not had it since the Russian revolution. That is the direction of travel. Secondly, it was about demonising minorities. When we look at Putin’s Russia, we see voter suppression and indeed demonisation of those from the Caucasus or elsewhere.
That is the threat that we face. We have to take actions as a legislature that encourage people to participate, not take steps that discourage people from participating. That is about electoral politics, and it is what we should be doing.
I cannot remember who it was, but someone made comparisons with the southern states of the United States and what we are sadly seeing replicated not just in the Jim Crow states but in other states. The direction of travel is not perhaps yet south of the Mason-Dixon line, but the direction being pursued by this Government with this piece of legislation and with wider aspects is most definitely the type of thing that we used to think was left in the history books. Those things come from the Mason-Dixon line and were fundamentally about disenfranchising people whom those in power did not wish to vote, because they knew that the ability of the wider electorate to participate would threaten their power. It is for that reason that I oppose this Bill.

Aaron Bell: As many colleagues have said, confidence in our electoral system and the ballot is crucial. Members may not be aware, but we experienced a very troubling incident in 2017 in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was a case of incompetence, rather than fraud. In the general election of 2017—I was not a candidate then—approximately a thousand people in Newcastle-under-Lyme were disenfranchised. Approximately 500 students who tried to register when the snap election was called were not registered in time, and approximately 500 people who sought postal votes because they were going to be on holiday did not get their postal votes. This was incompetence, not fraud, but an investigation was carried out. It did not go to an election court.
The Association of Electoral Administrators produced a report on the failings of the council at the time, and the strength of feeling among the voters who missed out on their votes was very strong. One constituent of mine, who applied for a postal vote and did not receive it, wrote a letter to the chief executive of the council:
“For me a vote is not merely a mark on a paper; it symbolises my inalienable right to choose who shall govern me and set the tenor of my life for the next five years. This right and privilege has  been won for us over many generations by brave and dedicated men and women and is a precious gift. That I have been robbed of it by some administrative incompetence is an insult to their legacy and a grave disservice to me.”
That is how he felt about being robbed by incompetence, but we have heard today of many cases where people have been robbed of their votes by fraud.
We have heard anecdotal evidence from individual Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) gave us a case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) described very troubling cases. We have heard Government Members who directly experienced what happened in Tower Hamlets in 2014, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). People had their votes stolen. We all want people to vote—I completely subscribe to what my constituent said—but we want them to vote once, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said—and the Bill will ensure that happens. It will make sure that people cast their votes once and once only, and not under the duress that we have seen far too often.
I do not have time to go over some of the other cases, such as the Slough case or the Birmingham case, which was described as “a banana republic”. The judge in the Slough case at the election court in March 2008 noted:
“Recent legislation has addressed and largely solved the problem in Northern Ireland but there has been a flat refusal to introduce similar measures in mainland Britain.”
Finally, over 13 years later, we are introducing those measures that were called for under a Labour Government way back in 2008. I welcome what the Minister said in her speech.
People need ID to collect a parcel, to use a concessionary bus pass and even to attend Labour party meetings, as others have said. People need ID to vote in Northern Ireland—legislation introduced by Labour. As for the issue of why people should be disenfranchised by not having ID, we have addressed that point in the Bill—there will be free ID for everybody. We will make sure that people know how to access that ID.
I do not have time to go into the other elements of the Bill that I support. I hope to be able to engage with the Minister as the Bill progresses through Committee and on Report. I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Paul Bristow: My constituency regrettably has seen proven electoral fraud. Local politicians have gone to prison for electoral offences. It continues to have wards with postal vote rates that are way in excess of the national average, and local concerns about personation were sufficiently serious that my council had to install CCTV cameras at polling stations on the day I was elected.
One of the worst arguments—we have heard it regularly today—against voter ID at polling stations is the claim that there is no evidence of a problem. We have a system that largely operates on trust, making it almost impossible to detect acts such as personation, yet critics of this  Bill take this failure to detect an undetectable crime as proof that it does not exist. Quoting statistics is pointless. Any of us can have a guess at its prevalence, but, having spoken directly to people who were denied a ballot paper because they were marked as having already voted when they had not, I take my own view.
Opposition Members may say that there is not a problem, but leaving our electoral system wide open to abuse is a problem in itself. That is what their argument misses completely. When most members of the public realise how unchecked and uncheckable our system is, they are shocked. That applies doubly to new arrivals in our country who have often seen electoral malpractice for themselves in other parts of the world, where elections are far from clean. It was notable that during the Government’s photo ID trials, confidence in our electoral system increased most among ethnic minority voters. They are at the most risk of having their votes stolen and are most grateful for safeguards to protect them.
I turn quickly to postal votes. Irregularities are easier to spot, but they can also occur at much greater scale. In 2008, three Peterborough Labour candidates were convicted of electoral fraud offences. They were diverting postal ballots to addresses that they could access, collecting them and fabricating votes. The main protagonist received a 15-month sentence. That was postal vote harvesting with a capital H, but other forms have not been addressed. Still now, every time we have an election, those same activists are seen and photographed leading postal vote teams and pictured telling at polling stations. They have even turned up to recent elections. At my count in 2019, the same people were there.
This is an issue in Peterborough and we cannot bury our heads in the sand. For that reason, this is a long-awaited Bill that will clean up democracy and restore faith in the electoral system in my city.

Jerome Mayhew: Last week, my daughter turned 18. It was a day of enormous pride for her and for us. I would like to say that she was proud because she was adopting her civil responsibilities in full, but actually it was because she could buy alcohol. She celebrated the fact by getting on her bicycle with a friend and bicycling off to the local village shop. She was asked to present ID, and she was delighted to do it as part of the rite of passage of attaining adulthood. The point of that story is that we require ID when the act being undertaken is either important, such as collecting parcels or learning to drive a car, or personally damaging, such as buying alcohol or cigarettes or—it is a cheap joke—attending Labour party conferences.
In my view, the right to vote is as important as collecting a parcel, and the theft of a person’s right to vote is every bit as damaging to society as the 17-year-old buying a pint. It is a key right of citizenship, and it provides the basis of all our political power in this place and around the country. I think it extraordinary that up until now this right has not been protected in any way other than being asked to give a name.
ID protection is long overdue to maintain public confidence in the system. We have heard evidence from hon. Members that two thirds of the population would have their confidence in the fairness of voting increased with photo ID, and research on the 2019 voter ID pilot found that, among ethnic minorities, a staggering 97% of respondents said that they had increased confidence in elections being free from fraud and abuse when photo ID was used. This is really important stuff. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) that  this is not the PR stunt that Opposition Members suggest; it is real. The risk of electoral fraud does exist and needs to be tackled. We have heard the evidence from Tower Hamlets and Birmingham that shows how ethnic minorities in particular are targeted and how their rights have been infringed more than any other section of our community’s. They deserve better, and that is why the Government are standing up for them.
The Opposition say that there is no hard evidence of fraud. That is reminiscent of the response of the Labour Government back in the day when they were faced with the evidence of organised electoral fraud by sitting Labour councillors in Bordesley Green and Aston. The election judge said that
“there is likely to be no evidence of fraud, if you do not look for it. Especially if a policy decision is made not to look for it.”
He described Labour’s position as
“a state not simply of complacency but of denial.”
We have heard the same denial today.
I am glad that the Government are not complacent on electoral fraud and, unlike Labour, not in denial. Photo ID is the right step to take to look for fraud. I fully support the Bill.

Fleur Anderson: It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for their contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on her excellent maiden speech, really bringing her constituency to us—I feel that we lived part of her beautiful constituency—and I am sure she will be standing up for her constituents in the years ahead.
Labour will be voting against this legislation today. My colleagues on the Labour Benches behind me have laid out in clear terms the dangerous consequences of this legislation. This legislation is unnecessary and expensive, costing £120 million over the next 10 years—at least. It will have a chilling effect on democracy and it is an attack on free and fair campaigning. This legislation will see legitimate voters turned away from polling stations and local councils tied up in mountains of red tape and expense. It is a shameless attempt by the Government to rewrite the rules and rig democracy in favour of the Conservative party.
If passed, this legislation will reverse decades of democratic progress in the UK. The Government have not been honest with us here today or with the British public about the true intention of this Elections Bill. It has been presented as a quick-fix solution to polish up our democracy and introduce integrity into our system, but the truth is that our democracy does not have an issue with integrity; it is the Conservative Government who have the issue with integrity.
This Bill will disenfranchise millions of voters, and we all know that the Tories do better in elections the lower the turnout. It is time to be honest about what this Bill will mean in practice. This Bill will make it harder for working-class people, older people and people with disabilities, as well as black, Asian and minority ethnic people and people with learning disabilities to  vote. If Government Members do not agree, will the Minister commit to an equalities impact assessment to work out whether this will be true? There are concerns from so many groups representing those people saying that it will disenfranchise those groups of people.
The voter ID proposals are simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud. The Electoral Commission’s own advice, following the pilot schemes in 2018 and 2019, is that
“we are not able to draw definitive conclusions, from these pilots, about how an ID requirement would work in practice”—
how will it work?—
“particularly at a national poll with higher levels of turnout or in areas with different socio-demographic profiles not fully represented in the pilot scheme.”
It very clearly concluded that the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud. In the pilot, more than 1,000 people were denied a vote because of a lack of ID—1,000 people. Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.
Local by-elections took place across Great Britain between January and March 2020 and there were eight Scottish council by-elections in the autumn of 2020, and there are just three cases of voter fraud under investigation. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and risks disenfranchising the 3.5 million people who do not have a photo ID for the sake of a tiny handful of fraud allegations. In 2019, there was a record turnout of 59 million votes, as many Members have said, but just one conviction for personation. Someone is more likely to be struck by lightning three times than to be convicted of voter personation, so why put in place this Bill?

Alberto Costa: I have sat here patiently and listened to the hon. Lady’s comments. I must confess I am not sure what Bill she is referring to. She is making a litany of allegations which are beyond surreal, if there is such a phrase. Can she please explain clearly why she thinks the people of Britain, who are astounded that there is not some form of proper voter ID, should not be given that security and certainty when going to the electoral vote?

Fleur Anderson: We do not have a national ID card and this image of people bursting out trying to get to the polling station at all costs is not the experience. It is hard to encourage people to vote. It is hard to encourage the most marginalised groups to go out and vote. They are the groups that will lose out the most from this. They find it hard to go out and get an ID. They will be the ones who will be turned away, who will not remember to bring the ID, who will not be able to bring it. All the rules on how to get this free photo ID are not clear: how will they go down to their town hall, what will they have to prove? There is barrier after barrier for the most disenfranchised people, as has been raised by many Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead raised the issue of the barrier for young people and older people. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South spoke of the disenfranchisement of those hit hardest by the Government’s policies. My hon. Friend  the Member for Cynon Valley raised the concerns of 19 Welsh organisations—surely Conservative Members cannot just disregard those disadvantaged groups. She also raised the amazing work of the Welsh Government to make voting easier, while this Government will be making voting more difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South raised the disproportionate outcome of these measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) raised the important issue of the glaring omission of student ID cards from the list of IDs. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Swansea West made passionate interventions about deeply concerning issues of voter suppression that is in keeping with the US Republican party. We cannot be deluded by Ministers into thinking the voter ID laws we are debating today are any different from the dangerous laws passed by the Republican party. The parallels we have drawn and the similarities are worth serious investigation. American civil rights groups have been fighting for years to combat restrictive voter suppression laws, particularly those affecting ethnic minority communities.
It has been asked, who opposes these measures? Leading civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center came together to warn the UK Government that UK Government voter ID policies will harm democracy. Did this make the Minister think twice about that policy? When Age UK said that compulsory photo ID will make 4% of over-70s—that is equivalent to 360,000 people—less likely to vote, did the Minister reconsider that policy? When Lord Woolley of Woodford, director of Operation Black Vote, said in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that
“tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, might be impeded by this imposition, clearly it is not proportionate and could actually have a monstrous negative effect”
did this make the Minister reconsider her policy? And when the Royal National Institute of Blind People raised serious concerns about the impact of these measures on blind people, did that make the Minister rethink the policy?
On the provisions on joint campaigning, these clauses are an attack on freedom of speech and association and undermine the independence of trade unions, charities and advocacy organisations. I was working for a charity when the gagging law came into place and saw the chilling effect on democracy. These measures are completely unnecessary. They risk tying up organisations in red tape and risk effectively gagging charities and pressure groups, who are a vital voice for marginalised people in our elections, but they will err on the side of caution for fear of falling foul of this law. That will have a chilling effect on our democracy with far-reaching impacts.
These measures are illogical. Political parties and non-party campaigners are different; they have vastly different expenditures at election time. It is unfair to apply these regulations jointly to such different organisations. The measures also breach key principles set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as has been raised by Members.
Trade unions represent millions of working people, but the Government have shown in this Bill a commitment to cut those people out of our democracy. On foreign   donations, the Bill is another example of the Conservatives bending the rules to benefit themselves. That is a wholly unnecessary change that weakens our electoral integrity.
If the Conservatives were serious about improving democratic engagement, they would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as concentrating efforts on registering the millions of adults in this country not currently on the electoral roll, starting with automatic registration. If they were serious, they would increase transparency and avoid opaque practices such as the use of private emails for Government business. They would be building pathways to voting, not putting up barriers.
This Bill is not necessary and not proportionate. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money that creates more problems than it solves. It reverses decades of democratic progress and needs to be completely overhauled.

Robin Walker: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. It is a pleasure to once again take part in a full debate in this Chamber. May I take the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green)? I congratulate her on a very gracious maiden speech and the kind tribute that she paid to her predecessor, who was a dear friend of so many on the Government Benches.
I welcome the opportunity to close this debate as the Minister with responsibility for elections in Northern Ireland, a part of our United Kingdom where photographic ID has been used successfully to support the integrity of elections for a number of years and where, thanks to legislation introduced by the last Labour Government with cross-party support in both Westminster and Northern Ireland, there is a higher degree of confidence in the integrity of elections than in any other part of the UK. One of the hon. Members from the SNP, who is no longer in his place, intervened to ask the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution about the evidence from Northern Ireland, and I want to talk a bit about that.
As we have heard, voters in Northern Ireland have first-hand experience of one of the measures at the heart of this Bill: the requirement to show photographic ID at polling stations. That requirement is an accepted and non-controversial part of elections in Northern Ireland that has been in place for decades and enjoys cross-party support. Although turnout in Northern Ireland is, historically, usually lower than in Great Britain, in the first election after the introduction of photographic ID, turnout in Northern Ireland was unusually higher than in England, Scotland or Wales.

Alec Shelbrooke: We have heard a lot of spurious arguments today about voter ID. Was that not exemplified just now by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who said that low turnouts favour the Conservative party? There was a 59% turnout in 2001. I would like to erase the history of Tony Blair, but I believe that he had a 166 majority.

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Certainly, in my experience, the higher the turnout in my constituency, the higher my majority has turned out to be.
This measure in Northern Ireland has helped to prevent electoral fraud, and it has not affected participation. Labour Ministers said at the time of its introduction—I want to quote this in full—that the measures
“will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters,”
ensuring
“that no one is disenfranchised because of them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]
They added that
“the Government have no intention of taking away people’s democratic right to vote. If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 739.]
I do not always agree with pronouncements from the Front Bench in the era of Blair and Brown, but in this case they were 100% right. There is no evidence that ID has negatively impacted turnout. Levels of satisfaction with the electoral process are usually slightly higher in Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon: I endorse what the Minister has said. We as a party will be walking through the Lobby with the Government tonight to support the Bill. Photo ID has been a success for Northern Ireland. We can vouch for that. It has stopped fraud and corruption. I had a discussion with the Minister earlier. The RNIB has expressed some concerns about the legislation. Will he agree to meet the RNIB to discuss those concerns?

Robin Walker: I am certainly happy to offer that meeting. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution mentioned earlier that she has had a number of meetings with the RNIB already and has been working with it, but she will continue to meet it as the Bill progresses, because that is vital. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s illustration of the support for this measure in Northern Ireland.

Brendan O'Hara: rose—

Robin Walker: I want to address some of the evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s party asked for. One survey conducted just a few years—

Brendan O'Hara: It is on that point.

Robin Walker: I will address the point that the hon. Gentleman’s party raised. One survey, conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2009 under the last Labour Government, just a few years after the introduction  of photographic ID in Northern Ireland, found that 100% of respondents in Northern Ireland experienced no difficulty with presenting photographic ID at polling stations. As part of its post-election questionnaire in 2019, the Electoral Commission reported that 83% of voters in Northern Ireland found it very easy to participate in elections, as opposed to 78% across Great Britain, including, of course, Scotland.

Brendan O'Hara: Can I just clarify whether the Minister is drawing a clear and direct parallel between the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021? Is there a clear and direct parallel that joins the two that explains this legislation?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman should want us to learn from what works in one part of the UK for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am very pleased to see the United Kingdom aligning further, with Northern Ireland leading the way as Great Britain takes forward a measure to protect the integrity of elections, which has been tried and tested to great effect in Northern Ireland.
Some of the wider claims we have heard in today’s debate are simply not borne out by the experience of Northern Ireland. They echo some of the scaremongering when this Government successfully introduced individual electoral registration. Many Opposition Members cried that that would result in mass disenfranchisement, but we saw the effect in the last UK general election, when a record number of people were registered to vote. The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, one of the hardest working Ministers with whom I have had the pleasure to work and herself no stranger to Northern Ireland, excellently articulated the reasonable and considered approach we are taking across the Bill.
We heard a number of very powerful speeches in support of these measures from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), my right hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for Southport (Damien Moore), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).
I want to try to answer some of the points that have been raised and some of the questions that have been put to me in Members’ contributions. Before I do, however, I think it is worth reflecting on the work undertaken to get to this point and the long pedigree of some of the measures in the Bill. This is not just a product of the Government or the Cabinet Office; it has been inspired, informed and enhanced by the input of a wide variety of organisations and individuals. We are grateful to a number of parliamentary Committees, many of whose thoughtful contributions are reflected in the measures and some of whose Chairs we heard from in today’s debate. To highlight just a few individuals, the important contribution of Lord Pickles has been critical in understanding the very real risks and challenges our electoral system faces. Similarly, the reports by colleagues in this House, as well as by the House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies, have highlighted key considerations, from the need for more transparency in areas of digital campaigning to political finance.
Along with the valued contribution of the electoral sector experts, I know the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution has been meeting a wide range of organisations in the voluntary and community sector, which have raised some important points and will play a vital role in ensuring that the detail that will be developed in secondary legislation will meet the needs of all those who manage and use our electoral services. In particular, she is committed to continue engagement with people with disabilities, other minority groups and some of the key groups of vulnerable people who have been all too  often, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and for Bolsover pointed out, the major victims of electoral fraud.
I want to turn to some of the specific questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and her colleague the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) asked about an impact assessment. I would direct them to the 21-page equality impact assessment and the 120-page impact assessment published alongside the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh  South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked about the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I welcome the report published by the Committee in July. As the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution said, the recommendations will be given full and proper consideration, and the Government will respond. In fact, I should point out that we are bringing forward measures in the Bill which are closely linked to recommendations made in that report, such as a new requirement on political parties to declare their assets and liabilities over £500 on registration, and a restriction of third-party campaigning to UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made a powerful speech, as he always does. Like many on the Government Benches, I happen to disagree with him on this particular one, but let me point out that the Government research he quoted also found out that 98% of people across the age groups have access to accepted forms of photographic ID already, 99% of people from ethnic minority groups have that level of access, and 99% of those aged between 18 and 29 already have an acceptable form of photographic identification.
The hon. Members for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) asked about important issues of engagement with the devolved Administrations. Devolution means that we already have different arrangements for devolved and reserved elections. We do engage regularly and I can offer him the reassurance he sought that the strategy document will not undermine the partnership between the Electoral Commission and the devolved Administrations.
There are many other points that I would like to address, but I will not have time. Let me conclude by thanking hon. Members for all their valuable contributions. The Bill will place British citizens’ participation at the heart of our democracy and will keep it modern, secure, transparent and fair, so that our democracy can continue to thrive. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution will do an excellent job of steering it through Committee, and I look forward to a lively debate in the next phase of its passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 329.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Elections Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Elections Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 3 November 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Elections Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided,
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund, and
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Business Of The House (9 September)

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 9 September, proceedings on the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee shall be entered upon immediately after the conclusion of the remaining stages of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, and, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (4) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) insofar as they relate to the timing of half days, may be proceeded with until 5.00 pm or for three hours, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and those proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.—(Scott Mann.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insolvency

That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021, No. 718), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Education

Ordered,
That Jonathan Gullis be discharged from the Education Committee and Nicola Richards be added.—(Mike Freer, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Local Policing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Andrew Bowie: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. The safety and security of our people and their property is one of the primary roles, if not the primary role, of any Government. In this country, we are lucky that we have in our police forces, a body of dedicated, professional men and women, ready and willing to take upon themselves the heavy duty of policing our country, by consent of the public, and ensuring their safety. In the Conservative party, we have a Government who are committed to supporting the police service, and all those who serve in it, to carry out their increasingly complex and difficult job—it is in our DNA. It was Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern Conservative party, who, through his Metropolitan Police Act 1829, created the first civilian, professional, centrally organised police force for Greater London, established on the principal of policing by consent. This is about recognising
“always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”
That is why the Conservative party has committed itself to putting 20,000 more police on the streets of England and Wales, backed by a £750 million recruitment campaign, and we are giving police enhanced powers to crack down on violent crime. As a party, we are committed to maintaining the local, democratic accountability of police forces throughout England and Wales through elected police and crime commissioners.

Jack Dromey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for initiating this debate. The simple and sad reality in the west midlands is that in 2010 we had 1,821 community officers but by 2018 we had 716. Despite the efforts of our PCCs, David Jamieson and Simon Foster, all that the Government are promising in the next stage is 1,000 officers. That means we will be more than 1,000 police officers down on where we were in 2010. Does the hon. Member understand the real concern that there is on behalf of beleaguered communities such as Stockland Green in my constituency, which is seeing serious rises in crime and antisocial behaviour? In all honesty, the Government have let the police service and the public down.

Andrew Bowie: The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. All of us who represent communities across the whole breadth of the United Kingdom understand the importance of having a locally visible police service so as to maintain public safety and, in essence, make people feel safer. That is why the Government are investing so much in the recruitment of more police officers. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as I think he is, that more could be done and more police officers should be recruited in the west midlands, I absolutely support him in that call and urge the Government to listen to him. If more police officers are needed in the west midlands, that is exactly what the west midlands should get.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and support what he just said about community policing. The difficulties to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) referred are replicated throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that community policing, to which he has referred, with local faces and compassion, understanding and an unwavering desire to serve the local community, is what is needed? Furthermore, does he also agree that the creation or enhancement of such a force needs the necessary investment and funding?

Andrew Bowie: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Given that we are speaking about police forces throughout the whole United Kingdom, we should pay special recognition to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which does so much on a daily basis, in incredibly difficult circumstances that are not faced by any other police service in this country, to maintain the peace and safety of the people in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Strangford and, indeed, throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. I am glad that he brought that point to the House.
Policing is, of course, devolved. That decision was taken in 1999 and is one that I wholeheartedly support, for I believe that, just as with our continued support for locally elected police and crime commissioners, the power over such things should lie at the level that is the closest possible to the public. But that does not mean that policing exists in a vacuum or silo, and that is even more true in the digital age. Our forces co-operate on a number of fronts, up and down the country. That being the case, I envisaged this debate as an opportunity for MPs from every part of the United Kingdom—we have heard from the west midlands and Northern Ireland—and of all parties to reflect on the challenges faced by local policing in their constituencies, whether because of geography, financing or the impact of covid-19.
Let me give some examples. In my constituency, following the tragedy on the railway at Carmont last year, we saw the British Transport police keeping passengers safe and working closely with Police Scotland to secure the site and assist the investigation. In the largest joint operation to take place in Scotland—and perhaps throughout Britain—Operation Venetic involved police forces throughout the UK and the National Crime Agency. It resulted, in July last year, in 59 arrests; the seizure of £7 million of laundered cash, along with guns, ammunition, explosives, stolen vehicles and industrial pill presses; and a major haul of drugs of every classification. It ended in the takedown of a digital platform, EncroChat, used by criminals around the world to get poison into all our communities—technology that did not respect borders, political or geographical.
In the north-east of Scotland, which is my part of the world, we have seen many examples of what is known, perhaps too blithely, as cuckooing. It is the last step in what is often referred to as county lines drug trafficking, where dealers from large cities expand their operations into smaller towns. They endeavour to exploit young and vulnerable people to sell drugs, carry cash and weapons, bringing violence, coercion and abuse. They may also take over a vulnerable person’s house. Again, this is where policing blurs lines between public protection  and being present and knowledgeable in the communities where officers live and work, acting on intelligence that has been passed on by colleagues in the north of England or the Metropolitan police.
That brings me on to the subject proper of local policing, particularly the presence and visibility of local officers. Even today, I have obtained figures that show a serious reduction in the number of beat bobbies since 2017—almost 80 officers in A division of Police Scotland alone. Of course it can be shown that the number of national officers has increased, but that is of little value to someone who has been broken into in Kemnay or in Laurencekirk in my constituency. Our hard-working officers on the frontline in Aberdeenshire, which I am lucky to represent, deserve to be fully resourced, and I am sorry to say that the closure of stations across my constituency will only heighten the problems. Communities such as Portlethen, which I represent, deserve more police patrolling in their streets, just as they do in the west midlands and in Northern Ireland. Indeed, if Portlethen police station closes, officers will be based 10 miles away in Stonehaven.
Sadly, despite the excellent work of individual officers and cross-border working on so many issues, we have seen over the past few years an increase in the centralisation of police services in Scotland. In 2013, we saw the loss of local accountability following the merger of eight police forces in Scotland into Police Scotland, which is governed by the Scottish Police Authority and accountable solely to Scottish Ministers. In 2017, we saw the closure of the Aberdeen and Inverness Control Rooms, which followed Dumfries, Stirling and Glenrothes, with the whole country now covered by Dundee, Motherwell and Glasgow.
It is now questioned whether Peel ever said that
“the police are the public and the public are the police”,
but that very principle is at the heart of how the police in the United Kingdom operate. Very often, it is about the presence of the police in the community that can make people feel safer and more secure. At the very heart of that principle—at the very heart of how we police this country and of how our people are protected from harm—is the idea of local community policing, by which I mean a police presence in each local community.
Police Scotland, especially the north-east division, is an excellent police force. Its officers carry out their duties diligently and with commitment to the people of the communities they serve. I am proud to say that I often hear constituents praising police officers, but I fear that the work that they do, particularly in the Old Grampian police area in the north-east of Scotland, is being undercut by decisions being made elsewhere.
Across Scotland, since 2015, 134 police stations have been closed, including five in Aberdeenshire, a large part of which I am privileged to represent. In Aberdeenshire, notwithstanding the incredible work of local police officers, crime has increased by 5% in this period. Figures show that police numbers have dropped by almost 80 since 2017. How is the main priority of local policing—keeping people safe through a community-based approach—to be achieved if we do not have the numbers or the proper resources? Our communities and our hardworking officers on the frontline deserve better.
I know that the Minister on the Front Bench has no responsibility for these decisions being taken in Edinburgh, but as a constituency MP, I have had hundreds of  emails and letters about local policing matters since my election to this place in 2017. Although I know that, by the powers of his office, he cannot effect most of these decisions, I believe that I have a duty as a locally elected representative to raise these concerns brought to me by my constituents in this sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom, to which I have been lucky enough to be elected.
In response to a local consultation on the proposed closure of its police station, more than 100 residents of Portlethen, a large and growing commuter town on the edge of Aberdeen, expressed their concern that a permanent presence in their community would be lost. Many people expressed their concern that, on the occasions that they had knocked on the door, there was no one in; and few people had called in due to the common knowledge that it was unstaffed most of the time. However, to me that is a result of understaffing and a lack of investment, not an argument to close the station and create a hub at Stonehaven, 10 miles further down the coast. Portlethen is a growing town, close to Aberdeen city, on the east coast main line.
I am not for one minute suggesting that I or the community are wedded to the existing building—having visited it, it is clear that it is not what the public expect of a modern police station—but to remove the permanent physical presence of the police from Portlethen altogether is a move based on budgetary decisions in Edinburgh rather than on the needs of the local area. It will mean that police officers will be worked even harder than they are; that they will, by necessity, provide a more reactive service with less ability to provide proactive intelligence gathering; and, ultimately, a reduction in the level of community policing that we know is valued by all our constituents across the UK.
The North East division of Police Scotland is 60 officers under establishment. We know the pressure that police services across the country are under, not least in this year of dealing with enforcing covid regulations, securing the G7 and preparing for COP26, on top of all their usual duties. The closure of Portlethen police station, as an example of a move away from having a permanent police presence in our communities, is a worry to many people. I urge those in charge to look at alternatives—not necessarily maintaining the present building, but using imagination and investment to build a better and more visible police force in my part of the country.
Let me be clear that I do not blame Police Scotland. I do, however, point the finger of blame at others with responsibility. For example, one of the biggest barriers to keeping police offices open, even for a few hours a week in more rural areas, is actually non-domestic rates. This issue is not specific to Scotland, but Police Scotland’s capital spending is ranked at 38 out of the 42 UK forces when considered per employee. I wonder whether we would be seeing these decisions in Scotland today if we had more local accountability in Scotland—elected police commissioners, or even local authority police boards with a connection to local communities.
Every constituency in this House is represented by passionate, committed Members of Parliament. We know and hear the concerns of our constituents on a whole heap of issues every day. I could not not raise those concerns when presented with this opportunity today. I therefore thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for indulging me in raising on the Floor of the House what is nominally  a devolved issue. I also thank the Minister, who I know will join me in thanking all those in the police service across the entire UK for keeping us safe; will commend the police forces for their incredible cross-border work across our one nation; and will reiterate our commitment to and our championing of local policing, be that in Aberdeenshire or anywhere else on these islands.

Kit Malthouse: I heartily endorse my hon. Friend’s closing remarks. We offer our eternal thanks to those who keep us safe on a daily basis. I am privileged to see them in operation at close hand, and have done so for more or less the past decade. My admiration for them grows every day. As he said, they have our thanks both individually and collectively, as a United Kingdom body of men and women to be admired and protected.
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing his constituents’ concerns to the Floor of the House. One of the great characteristics of our democracy, which I have outlined to my constituents again and again—not least during the Brexit debates that raged in this country—is that somebody can get hold of us by the lapels in the high street in Andover or in Portlethen, and give us a good shake; then, on a Tuesday evening, we can show up in the House of Commons and grab the Minister responsible by the lapels, and give him or her a good shake; and the Minister in turn can grab the Home Secretary or, indeed, the Prime Minister, and give them a good poke about something that matters to people in a relatively small community. I am hesitant to raise the spectre of Brexit in this debate, but as I said to my constituents at the time of the referendum, “What would the Interior Minister of a new United States of Europe care about the police station in Portlethen or the number of police officers in Andover?” It is marvellous that we are able to bring these issues to the Floor of this House and to debate them with the people who are responsible.
Sadly, though, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in this case I am not my proxy, for policing runs only in England and Wales. I am therefore obviously twice removed in the situation. First, it is obviously a devolved matter. Secondly, it is a matter that falls under operational independence. It is effectively for the chief constable in each area to decide on strategy, workforce planning, and the buildings and vehicles deployed in aid of the protection of the communities they serve. Although they will obviously listen closely to local communities, it is fundamentally their decision. Having said that, I do understand the strong concern that my hon. Friend has raised about the notion of presence. One of the key concerns that we all hear as constituency Members of Parliament is this concern about police presence: the idea that there should be governed, guarded space in the public realm; that every street in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be safe for public use so that people can go about their business unmolested; and that the guardians of that should be the police.
This was illustrated to me very strongly back in 2011, when I was deputy Mayor for policing in London and Assembly Member for West Central. There was a horrible   murder in Shepherd’s Bush, and the then borough commander in Hammersmith and Fulham—a chap called Kevin Hurley, who went on to be the police and crime commissioner in Surrey—called a public meeting that I attended. There was a row of people at the front of this very large public meeting, with 300 people there, and one of the issues that came up was the fact that Shepherd’s Bush Green police station was not open 24 hours a day; it was closed at night and people were concerned about it. Kevin said, “That’s great: I will reopen the police station if you want me to. Now tell me, which police officers would you like me to bring in off patrol to man the desk?” Of course the audience said, “No, no—we don’t want you to do that.” He then said, rather smartly, “Well, why don’t we leave the lights on so it looks like it’s open?” They thought that was a jolly good idea because the police station was a proxy for presence. It was as important to them as I know the police station in Portlethen is to my hon. Friend’s constituents.
By the way, while that might not be a suitable building, it is a small, handsome stone building with a great history to it, as my hon. Friend said, as part of the former Grampian police, so I can see why there is disappointment locally that it may be closing. I know that he is engaging very closely with Police Scotland and has been quite innovative in his suggestions of a replacement—not least, I understand, some presence in the local Asda, which might also be a useful proxy for a police station and somewhere that police officers could operate from. However, as I say, I am twice removed from that decision. I urge him and his constituents to keep up that engagement with Police Scotland, not least because, if the police station does go, that underlines the need for, exactly as he said, a strong presence on the streets of Portlethen, as he wants across the whole of his very beautiful constituency.
I urge my hon. Friend to keep pushing on this, not least because in England and Wales there is a desire, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) mentioned, that we are trying to fulfil with the recruitment of 20,000 extra police officers. Of course, that is 20,000 gross. The overall recruitment over three years will in the end, to backfill retirements, need to be about 45,000. That will push many police forces up to levels of policing that they have not seen for some time. On top of that, a lot of police and crime commissioners are recruiting beyond their allocation from the police uplift so that some parts of the country will have more police officers than ever before. The Kent constabulary, for example, can already boast that it has the highest number of police officers that it has ever had in its history.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge, which is a fair one, I urge him to look to his police and crime commissioner to do the same as a number of other commissioners and put their money behind their own part of the recruitment campaign. West Midlands is doing well. There is a large allocation of new police officers coming, but there is always more that can be done. I urge him to support us in trying to get the maximum number of police officers we can for the money that is allowed to us.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend underlined the integral nature of Police Scotland—the vital part that it plays in the architecture of UK policing. It is absolutely  the case that, while the governance and accountability framework for Police Scotland is devolved, its role in the safety of the whole United Kingdom is absolutely critical. UK policing can only succeed or fail as a whole. This was neatly outlined to us—I was pleased that he mentioned it—with the advent of Operation Venetic. This extraordinary operation—a magnificent achievement by the National Crime Agency, which of course works across the whole of the UK—cracked open the bespoke criminal communications system known as Encrochat. It revealed some awful horrors across the whole of the United Kingdom that we were able to get ahead of. Chief among them was the targeting of Scotland by organised crime specifically for the trafficking of drugs. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the remarkable results that continue to come from the intelligence gathered as part of that operation.
The most impactful result for me was that, as part of Operation Venetic, Kent constabulary was able to bust open a factory in its county that was manufacturing street benzos—benzodiazepines—specifically for use in Scotland, where they are a plague in places such as Glasgow, causing so many drug deaths, which are a terrible tragedy in Scotland. They were being manufactured for export to Scotland. As part of that raid, the police recovered 27 million tablets, which for a country of 6.5 million people is quite a few tablets each and a hell of a lot of money that would have been drained out of Glasgow, all of it leading to degradation and misery north of the border. The role that UK policing can play together, particularly to suppress drug supply and take on organised crime, and the critical nature of Police Scotland in that, has never been more important.
I was very pleased just a few weeks ago to pay a very interesting visit to Police Scotland to see the work that it is doing, not least at Gartcosh, its crime campus. I am very impressed by the work it does and by the leadership  of Police Scotland at the moment, but I am convinced that there is always more we can do together, not least because the drugs problem in Scotland—the solving of which is as dear to my heart as solving it in Andover or anywhere else in England and Wales—is one we will only crack together. Scotland has some advantages, in that the ability of gangs to get drugs into Scotland is restricted. There are basically two roads in and two rail lines in, give or take, which gives us enormous opportunities for interception, but the greater sharing of technology, the putting together of our heads and the binding of our efforts as one United Kingdom to confront this plague and crime will be successful. That is a key part of our “Beating crime plan”, which we published just before the recess, making sure that we work together as a whole country in fighting crime, at the same time as getting the basics right.
One of the chapters in our “Beating crime plan” is about excellence in the basics, and it speaks to the desire of local policing. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, I and every Member in this House want to ensure that our constituents know they are safe, feel safe and see that they are safe on a daily basis, because the brave men and women of Police Scotland, Hampshire police, West Midlands police, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all those police forces are able to be out there, visible, doing their job and protecting us all for the good of the whole.
I do not think that my hon. Friend should in the slightest apologise for bringing this matter before the House. This is what we are here for. If we are not here to talk about the problems, worries and concerns of our individual constituents, what on earth is the point?
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.